COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE Vs. SHAKTI TAR UDYOG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Some excise dispute appears to have arisen between the Respondent and the Appellant. During the pendency of the dispute, one Shri Rajiv Gupta who is the authorised signatory and Manager of the Respondent as well as the Director of M/s. Shakti Shiva Magnets Private Ltd. was arrested for evading the excise duty. On 21st September, 1997, Rajiv Gupta was granted bail subject to the condition that he would deposit a sum of Rs. 2,70,000/- towards excise duty and furnish a personal bond of Rs. 1 lakh with one surety in the like amount. Some other conditions were also imposed, with which we are not presently concerned. On fulfilling the condition of the bail order, Rajiv Gupta was released. Subsequently, M/s. Shakti Shiva Magnets Pvt. Ltd. took the benefit of the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme 1998 and settled its excise dues. In so far as the Respondent is concerned, the adjudicating authority held that no amount was due towards excise duty, but some penalty was imposed upon it. The penalty amount was paid by the Respondent.

(2.) Thereafter, the Respondent through its authorised signatory, Rajiv Gupta, applied for refund of Rs. 2.7 lakhs, which had been deposited towards excise duty in terms of the bail order dated 21st September, 1997. The contention urged was that since no excise duty was payable, the Appellant could not withhold this amount. For some reason, the Appellant insisted upon giving the refund only to Rajiv Gupta, who was the beneficiary of the bail order dated 21st September, 1997.

(3.) When the refund was declined to the Respondent, the matter was taken up before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal and by an order dated 21st January, 2004, it was held that the deposit of Rs. 2.7 lakhs made by or on behalf of the Respondent should be refunded. This order is now challenged by the Appellant on the ground that the amount is payable to Rajiv Gupta and not to the Respondent.