TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 1244
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pre-deposit under CTIN No.2102333250 dated 07.03.2021 for an amount of Rs.1,25,12,819/-, during the progress of the investigation by DGCI, Coimbatore. 1.2 Show Cause Notice Nos.04,05,06 & 07/2021 C.Ex., dated 03.09.2021 were issued by the Additional Director General, DGGI, Coimbatore wherein in para Sl.No.g of 16.2 (page No.104), the above payment of Rs.1,25,12,819/- has been clearly mentioned, with the description "paid by them voluntarily during the course of investigation". The said payments were also verified with the data available in ACES and found to be correct. 1.3 The case was adjudicated by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Madurai and Order-in-Original No.MDU/CEX/COM/-01 to 04/2023 dt. 31.01.2023 was passed, wherein the demand for Rs.1,95,30,192/- and interest thereon was confirmed against M/s.Sri Coronation Fireworks P. Ltd., and penalties were imposed on the claimant in Para 33.2 of the said OIO. Further in the order, the amount of Rs.1,25,12,819/- paid by the claimant was appropriated against the duty paid by M/s.Sri Coronation Fireworks P. Ltd. 1.4 Aggrieved by the Order-in-Original, M/s.Sri Coronation Fireworks P. Ltd., and Coronation Group of Companies, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gation itself, as recorded at para-1 of the Order-in-Original. 4. Seriously aggrieved by the refund of the modest amount as against the actual payment made, the Appellant appears to have filed a first Appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Commissioner (Appeals) also having upheld the rejection of major portion of the refund claim thereby sustaining the Order-in-Original, the Appeal No.E/40967/2025 has been filed before us. 5. Similarly, the details of amounts deposited during investigation and the refund sanctioned vide Order-in-Original and upheld vide Order-in-Appeal respectively are tabulated in respect of other two Appeals viz. E/40968/2025 & E/40969/2025 filed by Appellant before us are as under : Appellant Order-in Original No. Order-in- Appeal No. Refund Claim dt. Amount deposited Refund Sanctioned Coronation Fireworks Pvt. Ltd. (Appeal No.E/40968 /2025) 12/CE/AC/ 2024Refund dated 21.05.2024 36/2025- MDU-CEAPP dated 19.02.2025 02.05.2024 1,42,26,800/- Rs.13,78,665/-(pre-deposit of Rs.12,95,004/- + Interest Rs.83,661) Bee Cee Fireworks Industries (Appeal No.E/40969/2025) 13/CE/AC/ 2024Refund dated 21.05.2024 14/202....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mount paid, which finally stood reversed by the Final Order of this Bench (supra) and therefore, the very demand and the collection of it has been held to be without the authority of law. Hence, the authorities cannot have the control over any amount paid either as a deposit or pre-deposit or whatever mode during investigation. There is also one another angle: it was canvassed during the course of arguments before us that when a normal refund of duty is claimed and for any reason, if the Authority proposes to reject the same, then the statute provides for depositing the refundable amount into the Consumer Welfare Fund but, however, in a case like the one on hand, the Revenue has not even bothered to whisper anything about it, which only means that the said amount has not only been collected, but also retained without the authority of law. 8. In a decision in the case of Team HR Services Private Ltd. Vs Union of India & Anr. - 2020 (6) TMI 342 - DELHI HIGH COURT = 2020 (38) GSTL 457 (Del.), the Hon'ble Delhi High Court was seized of an almost identical matter. The Hon'ble High Court after an elaborate discussion has held as under : "2. It is the case of the petitioner, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l demand of Rs. 4,66,39,061/-, and in which the said sum of Rs. 2,38,00,000/- had been adjusted, being allowed, the petitioner was not entitled to refund of Rs. 2,38,00,000/-. 8. We have enquired from the Counsel for the respondents, whether not the aforesaid logic in the order declining refund, leads to a absurd situation where, the respondents, notwithstanding their demand for the entire sum of Rs. 4,66,39,061/- (and against which the sum of Rs. 2,38,00,000/- deposited under protest had been adjusted) being set aside by CESTAT on the ground of being barred by time, are entitled to appropriate the amount of Rs. 2,38,00,000/- already deposited by the petitioner and demand with respect whereto has also been set aside. We have further enquired, whether not the said logic treats Rs. 2,38,00,000/- out of the total demand of Rs. 4,66,39,061/- differently from the balance, with the respondents being entitled to recover/appropriate Rs. 2,38,00,000/- but not being entitled to recover the balance demanded amount. It was not the case of the respondents before the Commissioner or before CESTAT or before this Court that the deposit by the petitioner of Rs. 2,38,00,000/- even though un....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....respondents have also not pleaded a case of the petitioner being not entitled to refund, on the ground of the petitioner having passed of the liability to another as illustrated in the Nine Judge Bench's judgment of the Supreme Court in Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Union of India, (1997) 5 SCC 536 = 1997 (89) E.L.T. 247 (S.C.). Allowing the respondents to retain the said amount, would also be in violation of Section 72 of the Contract Act, 1872, obliging a person to whom money has been paid by mistake or under coercion, repay the same. The said provision enshrines the principle of unjust enrichment and restitution and the respondents State, by refusing to refund the sum of Rs. 2,38,00,000/-, are purporting to unduly enrich themselves. 13. We may however mention that the Counsel for the petitioner also, perhaps to bring the case of the petitioner within the Circular relied upon, has sought refund of the amount by calling it "pre-deposit", when it was not deposited by way of pre-deposit but under protest, even before any demand was raised and while the petitioner was still being investigated against. Such deposits under protest, to ease the rigors which the Tax Authorities ot....