TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (5) TMI 1007
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e statement, facts and Grounds of Appeal. 2. Shri N. Viswanathan, ld. Advocate appeared for the Appellant, Shri Anoop Singh, ld. Joint Commissioner appeared for the Respondent. 3. The appellant was engaged in the manufacture of 'Coconut Oil' claimed to be classifiable under Heading 15.13 of CETA, 1985; as per Sl. No. 9 Notification No.06/2006 CE dated 01.03.2006 and Sl. No.9 of Notification 12/2012 CE dated 17.03.2012, with 'NIL' rate of duty. It appears that the CBEC issued a Circular No. 145/56/95 CX., dated 31.08.1995 whereby 'Coconut Oil' whether pure or refined and whether packed in small or large containers were to be required to be classified under Heading 1503 as long as the item satisfied the criteria of 'Fixed Vegetable Oil'....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Hon'ble High Court had inter alia referred to orders of Bombay High Court and Kerala High Court. In the meanwhile, it appears that the Revenue officers took up investigation into the matter and as a consequence thereof, issued a SCN to the appellant hearing for the period, March 2005 to January 2010. It is the case of the appellant that the Revenue officers, despite the stay order of the Hon'ble High Court insisted the appellant to make payment of duty. As a result of which, they started depositing money equivalent to Excise Duty as compelled by the officers and that the said SCN was kept pending without adjudication for a number of years. It is the case of the appellant that they wrote a letter dated 11.11.2013, explaining the reasons ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Amount of duty in Rs. Date of payment of duty Date of filing the claim 1 Sep 2012 1,03,818/ 4.10.2012 1.10.2013 2 Oct 2012 1,10,443/ 5.11.2012 14.10.2013 3 Nove 2012 93,753/ 6.12.2012 11.11.2013 4 Dec 2012 1,04,178/ 9.01.2013 11.11.2013 5 Jan 2013 96,263/ 6.02.2013 11.11.2013 6 Feb 2013 to June 2013 4,88,637/ 9.03.2013,5.04.2013, 9.05.2013,5.06.2013 5.07.2013 3.12.2013 Total 9,97,092/ A173 SI. NO Month and year A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....SI. No Period Amount in Rs Date of the claim 1 June 2009 to Oct 2009 16,75,777 31.03.2014 2 Nov 2009 and Dec 2009 4,69,569 31.03.2014 3 Jan 2010 2,01,201 31.03.2014 4 Apr 2012 to Aug 2012 6,13,027 31.03.2014 Total 29,59,574 A-179 SI. No Period Amount in Rs Date of the claim 1 April 2011 to June 2011 4,29,919 01.04.2014 2 July 2011 to Sep 2011 4,64,685 01.04.2014 3 Oct 2011 to Dec 2011 2,33,804 01.04.2014 4 Ja....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Reference was made to a Table at para 10 of the Statement of Facts where the appellant has given details of all such notices issued to them. It was submitted that the dispute of classification of 'Coconut Oil' packed in packages of less than 200 ml. was unresolved right from March, 2005 and hence, to say that the classification was never challenged, was incorrect. 9. It is the further case of the appellant that when the refund applications were filed, the Adjudicating Authority did not even issue SCN, called for a personal hearing and then, vide respective Orders-in-Original, rejected refund claims as 'time barred' and 'on merit as well', while the Adjudicating Authority has not considered the fact that depositing money equivalent to d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... CCE Kolkata-IV - 2019 (9) TMI 802 - SUPREME COURT. 11. We have carefully considered the rival contentions, perused the documents placed on record and the judicial precedents relied upon during the course of arguments before us. The only issue that crops up for our consideration is, "whether the rejection of refund claims of the appellant by the Adjudicating Authority is in order"? 12. There is no denial of the facts that what was paid, may be as a 'deposit' by the appellant, was an amount equal to the duty element, the appellant itself had classified the 'Coconut Oil' pack of less than 200 ml. under Chapter 33 [and not under Chapter 15], there was a serious issue regarding the very classification of 'Coconut Oil' below 200 ml. packag....