TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (9) TMI 399
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d of part of the pre-deposit amount and by rejecting the other part of refund amount claimed by the appellant by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur vide Order-in-Original dated 18.09.2019. Being aggrieved with the above order, the appellants filed an appeal before the learned Commissioner (Appeals), Nagpur, who in deciding the issue in Order-in-Appeal dated 08.03.2021 (for short referred to as "the impugned order") had upheld the order of the original authority and rejected the appeal filed by the appellant. 2. I have heard arguments advanced by both sides and perused the case records along with the paper books filed by both sides. 3. The primary issue arising in this dispute relates to alleged clandestine production and clearance of 'mild steel ingots' on the basis of investigation conducted by the Central Excise authorities, Nagpur. Upon completion of the investigation, two show-cause notices were issued; and the matter was adjudicated by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur in confirming the demands raised in the SCN for total duty of Rs.10,02,45,193/- vide orders dated 01.06.2009 and 31.12.2019, besides imposition of penalty on the appellant and th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the cases is Rs. 10,02,45,193/- and the assessee has deposited 25%of the duty amount of Rs. 2,50,61,298/-. The payment details are verified from GSTN and found correct. There are no Govt. dues outstanding against the party. xx xx xx xx xx 13. From the provision (a) it is clear that, the issues like Time Bar of Refund Claim, Unjust Enrichment to be verified in normal Refund claim filed under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, are need not to be verified in case of Refund of Pre-deposit. 14. In view of the above I find that, the claimant is entitled for Refund of Rs. 2,50,61,298/ and the differential amount of Rs.75,77,783/- (Rs. 3,26,39,081/- minus Rs. 2,50,61,298/-) is inadmissible and is liable to be rejected as the said amount is not relevant with the O-I-O No. 3/2009/C dtd. 01.06.2009 & 34/2009/C dtd. 31.12.2009 which were decided Vide CESTAT order A/86363- 86366/2019 dtd. 07/08/2019. 15. The claimant has claimed refund of Rs. 2,50,61,298/-. I find that, Section 35FF of Central Excise Act, 1944 and the provisions made in the Circular No.984/08/2014-CX dated 16.09.2014 (already stated above) allows Interest on the amount of pre-deposi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....een made by them. xx xx xx xx xx (ix) During the routine course of time, any assessee deposit amount in Government head due to various reasons. They may deposit in compliance of audit objection, outcome of scrutiny of returns by the field officers, for arrears of revenue amount, for payment of duty liability and also investigation proceedings. During the period of 2004- 2008, P.L.A. register was maintained wherein the assessee credit the amount deposit made by T.R 6 challan, for regular payment of duty and other items including arrears of amount etc. It is possible that the appellant might have deposited some amount during that period for some other purpose but now claiming that amount as refund treating them as deposit made during the course of investigation is not legal and proper. 27. (i) In view of above, it can be concluded that the refund claim of Rs.24,00,000/- of the appellant is nowhere connected to the impugned case. The CESTAT Mumbai vide order dated 07/08/2019 has set aside two orders-in-original dated 01/06/2009 and 31/12/2009 and consequently, the pre deposit of Rs.2,50,61,298/- made by the appellant had become liable to be refunded. The low....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ity against ongoing investigation regarding clearance of excisable goods. On perusal of the TR-6 challans and the letters addressed to the Department, it appears that the signed acknowledgement of dates 27.12.2005 and 05.06.2008 was given by the Department in receipt of such letters dated 27.12.2005 and 05.06.2008. Further, the certificate of the Chartered Accountant certifying that an amount of Rs.24 lakhs have been paid as pre-deposit and the same is shown as deposit and advance in the Balance-sheet in order to claim its refund from the Department shows the accounting treatment of such amounts paid to the department. On perusal of the above documents, it is clear that the appellant had paid pre-deposit during the period of investigation. However, the same amount has not been reflected either in the show-cause notice or in the adjudication proceedings. Though, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has held this against the appellant, the laid down principles of taxation is that any tax is to be collected only with the authority of law. Therefore, if any amount has been paid as pre-deposit, not being related to any excise duty payable against any specific excisable goods cleared for h....