JUMBO BAGS LTD , G S ANIL KUMAR Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF GST & CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Writ Petitions were called through Video Conferencing on 21.09.2020. By consent of both the parties, both these Writ Petitions are taken up for final disposal.

(2.) By placing reliance on Customs Notification No.125/84-C.E., the petitioner claimed exemption from payment of duty against the sales effected by them against the Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) against foreign exchange. The Revenue rejected the claim, holding that the petitioner is liable to pay the duty demanded. The challenge made to the rejection before the adjudicating authority and the Commissioner of Appeals were unsuccessful. Consequently, in the appeal before the CESTAT in the case of Jumbo Bag Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise Chennai,2005 184 ELT 214it was held that the duty demand was not sustainable and the Commissioner was in error in invoking Notification No.2/95 for demanding excise duty. The Revenue had challenged the order of CESTAT before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and by an order dated 05.08.2015, it was held as follows:-

(3.) The 1st respondent in the impugned notice dated 16.05.2017, accepted the fact that the petitioner is entitled to interest on Rs.2,72,466/- towards the belated refund of pre-deposit of Rs.25,00,000/-. However, this amount was set off against another demand issued by the 2nd respondent, by interpreting the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the petitioner's own case and holding the petitioner liable to pay duty for the clearances effected during the period September 1999 to September 2001 and thereby proceeded to pre-determine the duty liability as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Virlon Textile Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, 2007 211 ELT 353 (SC).