Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Tribunal

T.T.G. Industries Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 30 June, 2006

Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal – Delhi
T.T.G. Industries Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 30 June, 2006
Bench: S Kang, Vice-, S T T.V.


ORDER

S.S. Kang, Vice-President

1. The applicant filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 10,94,130/-. The applicant filed a refund claim for this amount, which was deposited under the KVS Scheme under the declaration filed by the appellant, which was not accepted by the competent authority. Subsequently, the Commissioner of Central Excise vide letter dated 30th June, 1999 informed the applicant that the amount of Rs. 10,94,130/- deposited by the applicant is to be adjusted towards the outstanding arrears of demand and penalty. Thereafter, the applicant filed appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and Supreme Court vide order dated 7-5-2004 [2004 (167) E.L.T. 501 (S.C.)] allowed the appeal filed by the applicant by holding that the appellant is not liable to pay excise duty on the goods in question. The applicant filed refund of the amount, which was deposited under the KVS Scheme. The proper officer allowed the refund thereafter. The order was reviewed and the Commissioner (Appeals) held against the appellant on the ground that any amount deposited under the KVS Scheme are not refunded under the provisions of Section 93 of the Finance Act. The contention of the applicant is that when the amount is adjusted by the Commissioner of Central Excise against the demand and the demand has been set aside, they are entitled for refund. Revenue relied upon the provisions of Section 93 of the Finance Act, which provides that any amount paid in pursuance to the declaration under Section 93 shall not be refunded under any circumstances.

2. As the amount has been adjusted against the demand, hence the appellants have a strong case. We, therefore, direct waiver of pre-deposit of whole of amount for hearing the appeal. The stay application is allowed. The appeal will come up for hearing in due course.

(Order dictated and pronounced in the open Court on 30-6-2006)