2025 (6) TMI 1675

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e are that investigation was initiated against the appellants regarding the observed mis-declaration and alleged undervaluation. During the course of investigation, the appellant M/s Harkaran Dass Deep Chand had deposited Rs. 50,00,000/- vide TR-6 challans dated 21.03.2007, 21.02.2007 and 07.04.2007 in Appeal No. C/55219/2023 and appellant M/s Harkaran Dass Vedpal had deposited Rs. 15,00,000/- in Appeal No. C/55220/2023. After the conclusion of investigation, Show Cause Notice dated 20.02.2009 was issued by the DRI and the said show cause notice was quashed by Punjab & Haryana in its order dated 22.07.2019 in CWP No. 10537 of 2011. Accordingly, both the appellants filed the refund claim dated 25.03.2021 for Rs. 50,00,000/- (plus interest) a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....venue deposit. Above all, the impugned show cause notice was ordered to be quashed by Hon'ble High Court Punjab & Haryana. In the given circumstances, the appellant was not only entitled for the sanction of the amount of refund claim but also for the interest thereupon calculated @ of 12% from the date of deposit thereof till date of disbursement thereof. With these submissions, both the appeals are prayed to be allowed. 5. While rebutting these submissions, learned Departmental Representative foremost has conceded the earlier decisions even the decision of this Bench in the case of M/s J.K. Cement Works Vs. CGST, Udaipur - Final Order No. 50290-50293/2025 dated 06.02.2025  and M/s Churchit International Vs. CC- Final Order No. 58537/....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed from the date of its deposited till the sanction thereof, on the amount as was collected from the appellants during the course of investigation which stands already refunded." 8. It is an admitted fact that both the appellants had deposited the respective amounts (in question) much prior the issuance of Show Cause Notice. As per Section 73 of Finance Act, 1994 the Show Cause Notice should not have been issued. The Show Cause Notices stands admittedly quashed. This admitted fact is sufficient to clarify that the amounts in question are not the amounts of duty/tax but are as good as Revenue Deposit. Retention of such amounts with the Revenue/Government is prohibited under Article 265 of the Constitution of India. The decision in the case ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....& CGST, Delhi- 2021 (378) ELT 293 (Tri.-Del.)  ; (iii) Pr. Commr. of CGST, New Delhi Vs. Emmar Mgf Construction Pvt. Ltd.- 2021 (55) GSTL 311 (Tri.-Del.) (iv) M/s. Digipro Import and Export Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India- 2017 (350) ELT 145 (Del.) . 11. In the case of Parle Agro Pvt. Ltd.- 2018 (360) ELT 1005 (T-All.)  and Omjai Bhavani Silk Mils (P) Ltd.- 2009 (243) ELT 560 (T-Bang.)  while relying upon the another decision of this Tribunal in the case of M/s. Toyota Kirloskar Auto Parts Pvt. Ltd.- 2009 (240) ELT 124 (Tri.-Bang.)  it has been held that: "The amount is not due and it had also been collected much before the adjudication order, the amount can only be treated as deposit. The officer of DRI had clearly ....