The appellant sought a refund of an amount paid as a deposit during the course of the investigation in 2004. In the first round of litigation, vide Final Order No. A/88363–86366/2019, the CESTAT set aside previous adverse orders passed by the adjudicating authority. Pursuant to such a favorable order, the appellant was successful in getting a refund of the amount paid as a pre-deposit during the first round of litigation. However, despite making a claim, the appellant was not granted a refund of the deposit made at the time of investigation, interest on such deposit, and interest on the amount of pre-deposit received by the appellant. Against the rejection of the appeal by the appellate authority, the appellant filed an appeal before CESTAT. It was contended that merely because the payment of the deposit did not form part of the show cause notice or order in the first round of litigation, the claim for such deposit cannot be rejected. CESTAT, Mumbai, set aside the order and allowed the appeal. It held that the laid-down principle of taxation is that any tax is to be collected only with the authority of law. Therefore, if any amount has been paid as a pre-deposit not related to any excise duty payable against any specific excisable goods cleared for home consumption, then such deposit is required to be adjusted against the duty liability. The procedure was followed either in the erstwhile PLA by cash payment or by debiting of CENVAT. Credit available in the account is only against specific duty liability. Thus, such a predeposit not finding mention in any of the disputed proceedings cannot absolve the department for treating it as a duty payment made against any specific demand or with respect to clearance of goods in the past. The CESTAT remanded the matter for de novo adjudication/verification of documents showing payment of deposit at the time of investigation.
Shiva Steels Industries (Nagpur) Limited v. CCE, Nagpur—Excise Appeal No. 85579 of 2019 [CESTAT, Mumbai]
