2018 (11) TMI 821 – CESTAT HYDERABAD – TMI – Refund of Excise duty paid during investigation – rejection of refund on the ground that the appellant has not debited the PLA with the amount of ₹ 25 lakhs an debited the same in April, 2017 only and thus, refund claim filed on 23.02.2017 is premature – Held that:- The first appellate authority has not considered the issue holistically, as it is on record and admitted, Order-in-Original No. 34/2009 dated 30.10.2009 confirmed demands raised by the appellant contained in the order portion, an appropriation of amount of ₹ 25 lakhs already paid by the appellant – If an amount of ₹ 25 lakhs stands appropriated on 30.10.2009, the case made out by the revenue that appellant had not debited amount in PLA and hence not eligible for refund is totally incorrect proposition.
–
The adjudicating authority is directed to sanction refund of ₹ 25,00,000/- immediately – appeal allowed – decided in favor of appellant. – E/30604/20
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
he adjudicating authority appropriated the amount of ₹ 25 lakhs as paid by the appellant during the investigation. Personal penalty of ₹ 16 lakhs was also imposed on the Managing Director of the appellant. Aggrieved by such order, an appeal was preferred to the first appellate authority. After following due process of law, the first appellate authority upheld the Order-in-Original by Order-in-Appeal No. 93 & 94/2011 (H-IV) CE dated 26.12.2011. Appellant contested the said Orderin-Appeal before the Tribunal and Tribunal by Final Order No. A/31327- 31328/2016 dated 18.11.2016 set aside the Order-in-Appeal and allowed the appeals with consequential relief. The said order of the Tribunal is not contested by both sides. Consequently, based upon such final order, appellant filed refund claim with the adjudicating authority for an amount of ₹ 43,96,019/- paid by them during the proceedings as also after the adjudication order was passed. The lower authorities after issui
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
draws our attention to Pg.77 in Appeal Memoranda, wherein the State Bank of India had given certificate that an amount of ₹ 25 lakhs was debited to the account of appellant herein and credited to Government account by GAR-7 Challan No. 66038 dated 13.09.2007 & GAR-7 Challan No. 66044 dated 14.09.2007. It is his submission that once the amount stands credited to the account of Government, the question of debiting PLA and denying refund claim only on this ground is incorrect. He would also draw our attention to Final Order No. 603 & 604/2011 dated 15.09.2011, passed by this bench, when the matters were remanded back to the lower authorities and submits that the Tribunal had also perused that the appellant had paid an amount of ₹ 25 lakhs with the Government. He would submit that the first appellate authority was in error in rejecting the appeal as amounts deposited during the investigation has to be refunded merely on submission of a letter. It is his further submiss
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
the assessee needs to be done through e-payment is the law and the challans which are annexed to the appeal memoranda are of physical deposits of the amounts involved. It is his submission that since amounts are not debited in the PLA, it cannot be stated that the said amount was paid to the Government during investigation. 5. I have considered the submission made by both sides and perused the records. 6. The issue involved in this case is regarding the refund of amount of ₹ 25 lakhs which is rejected. The findings of the first appellate authority for rejecting such refund claim are at Para 5.2.1 which is reproduced. 5.2.1. As regards the other ground for rejection of refund claim it is mentioned in the impugned order that the amount of ₹ 25,00,000/- which was deposited against the case registered was taken as credit in their PLA and retained this credit balance; the amount stands accrued to the national exchequer only when the same is debited in PLA; therefore when the amo
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
view, the first appellate authority has not considered the issue holistically, as it is on record and admitted, Order-in-Original No. 34/2009 dated 30.10.2009 confirmed demands raised by the appellant contained in the order portion, an appropriation of amount of ₹ 25 lakhs already paid by the appellant. If an amount of ₹ 25 lakhs stands appropriated on 30.10.2009, the case made out by the revenue that appellant had not debited amount in PLA and hence not eligible for refund is totally incorrect proposition. It is also to be noted that Tribunal has also recorded that this amount is debited by the appellant to the Government Treasury. On perusal of certificate issued by the State Bank of India which is annexed to appeal memoranda at Pg. 77, we do find that SBI has categorically stated that amounts are debited to appellant s account on 13th and 14th September, 2007 which would mean that the amounts have been credited with CBEC/Government of India. On such overwhelming evidence
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =