Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 5]

Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Calcutta

Commr. Of Central Excise And Customs, ... vs M/S Nicco Corpn. Ltd. on 2 August, 2001

ORDER

Smt. Archana Wadhwa

1. After rejecting the stay petition filed by the Revenue, I take up the appeal itself inasmuch as the issue is decided in favour of the respondents by a number of earlier decision of the Tribunal.

2. It is seen that the respondents had deposited an amount of Rs.5,24,031/- in terms of Section 35F of the Central Excises act, 1944 and under the stay order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) as a predposit of hearing of their appeal. Subsequently, the appeal was heard by the Commissioner (Appeals) and they were allowed by him. Tereafter, the appellants approached the Revenue for refund of the said predeposit made by them. The said refund was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner on the ground of time bar as also on the ground of unjust enrichment. Appeal against the above order of the Assistant Commissioner has succeeded before the Commissioner (Appeals), who, after following the Hon'ble Bombay High Court's judgment as also the various other decisions of the Tribunal held that the question of time bar as also of unjust enrichment does not apply in cases of predeposit of duties. The Revenue being aggrieved with the said order of the Commissioner (Appeals) has filed the present appeal.

3. After hearing both sides duly represented by Shri V.K.Chaturvedi, ld.SDR and Shri M.N.Basu, ld. Advocate, I find apart from the decision relied upon by the ld.Appellate Authority, that the Tribunal in a number of other decisions for example, Steelco Gujrat Ltd. Vs.Commr. of Central Excise, Vadodara reported in 2000 (122) ELT 67 (Tribunal), Commissioner of Central Excise, BBSR Vs. Konark Wires (P) Ltd. reported in 2000 (117) ELT 681 (Tribunal), has held that the predeposit made by the appellants during the pendency of the appeal before the appellate authority has to be refunded without raising the question of the time bar or unjust enrichment. As such, I do not find any merits in the Revenue's Appeal and rejected the same.

Dictated and pronounced in the open Court.