M/s Hotline CPT Limited Versus CGST&CE, Bhopal
Central Excise
2018 (6) TMI 776 – CESTAT NEW DELHI – TMI
CESTAT NEW DELHI – AT
Dated:- 30-5-2018
Ex. Appeal No. 50738 of 2018-SM – A/52108/2018-SM[BR]
Central Excise
Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial)
Sh. Manish Saharan, Advocate for the appellant
Sh. H. C. Saini, AR for the Respondent
Per: Archana Wadhwa:
After hearing both the sides, I find that the dispute in the present appeal relates to adjustment of the sanctioned refund claim against outstanding demands.
2. Elaborating on the facts, it is seen that in the year 2006-07 demands were raised against the assessee which was confirmed by the lower authorities to the extent of Rs. 67 lakhs approximately. When the matter reached the Tribunal, the appellant was directed to deposit an amount of Rs. 10 lakhs as a condition of hearing their appeal, which stand deposited by them. Subsequently, appeal was taken up for disposal and the confirmation of demand of duty
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
oner, confirming the demand, Tribunal has upheld the same. However, he submits that the said order of the Tribunal has been challenged by them before the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh and the appeal is pending before the Hon'ble High Court. However, he fairly agrees that there is no stay of operation of the Tribunal order. It is his contention that instead of adjusting the refund claim against the said confirmed demand, Revenue should have granted the refund.
On being queried as to whether they have deposited anything against the said confirmed demand, he shows his ignorance. On further being asked as to whether the assessee is ready to deposit the said confirmed demands, in the absence of any stay by Hon'ble High Court, ld. Advocate is not in agreement with the proposal.
5. Ld. AR for the Revenue draws my attention on para 8 of the Commissioner (Appeals) order. It is his contention that when the appellant has lost the demand case till the Tribunal and has merely filed an appe
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
an appeal has been filed by the appellant before the High Court is no ground to argue against the said adjustment of government dues, unless a stay has been obtained. It may also be stated that factory is closed since last several years and huge amount of customs dues are outstanding. Therefore, there is no infirmity in adjustment made by the adjudicating authority and such adjustment has been made in accordance with the statutory provisions and there is no violation of any departmental instructions”.
7. Admittedly, the appellant has to pay the Revenue the confirmed demands. However, they are not ready to pay the same but seek refund. The contention of the ld. Advocate that the demands have not attained finality cannot be appreciated inasmuch as the disputed issue in those demand cases stand settled right upto Tribunal. Mere filing of appeal before the Hon'ble High Court, without there being any stay, cannot be considered as pendency of the appeal. The Tribunal being the last fact f
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =