Page 217 - ELT_1st July 2020_Vol 373_Part 1

2020 ] ANANT B. TIMBADIA & CO. v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (EXPORT), MUMBAI 127

2020 (373) E.L.T. 127 (Tri. - Mumbai)
IN THE CESTAT, WEST ZONAL BENCH, MUMBAI
[COURT NO. 405]
Shri Ajay Sharma, Member (J)
ANANT B. TIMBADIA & CO.
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (EXPORT), MUMBAI
Final Order No. A/85160/2020-WZB, dated 6-2-2020 in Appeal No. C/86462/2013
Refund - Amount deposited during course of investigation - Assessee
claiming amount deposited during course of investigation from their own ac-
count under duress - Order-in-Original dated 18-4-2001 allowing refund of any
amount paid by assessee on their own account but not payment made on ac-
count of importer - HELD : Assessee’s letter to DRI specifically mentioning
that amount paid voluntarily towards payment of duties for import made by
against High Sea Purchases made from assessee - Although balance-sheets
showing amount in Assets side against heading deposited with Customs,
payment of amount on assessee’s account cannot be established - Assessee ve-
hemently arguing that aforesaid amount paid from their own account, but
wordings of order dated 18-4-2001 are ‘on their own account’ and there is big
difference between meaning of words from their own account and on their
own account - Assessee failing to establish through any of documentary evi-
dence that amount paid by them on their own account - No merits in Appeal -
Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944. [paras 3, 4]
Appeal dismissed
REPRESENTED BY : Shri Chirag Shetty, Advocate, for the Appellant.
Shri Dharmendra Singh, Superintendent, Authorised
Representative, for the Respondent.
[Order]. - This appeal has been filed impugning the order dated 1-11-
2012 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Export), Mumbai in Order-in-
Appeal No. 915/NCH/AC/GROUP-VII B/2012 by which the Learned Commis-
sioner rejected the Appeal filed by the appellant and upheld the order of the Ad-
judicating Authority rejecting the refund of Rs. 20 lacs paid by the Appellant
during the course of investigation.
2. The facts of the matter are as follows. One M/s. Kunal Overseas Ltd.
purchased on high sea sales bases large quantities of plastic moulding powders
like HDPE, LDPE, PVC, etc. from various industries including the Appellant and
later on cleared them free of Customs duty against advance licenses under DEEC
Scheme. The advance licenses were granted under actual user condition. Subse-
quent investigations by DRI revealed that M/s. Kunal Overseas Ltd. had unau-
thorisedly sold the goods cleared free of duty in the local market in contraven-
tion of the actual user condition under the scheme. DRI investigated the matter
and during investigation various names were surfaced including the name of the
Appellant. Accordingly a show cause notice was issued to all the persons whose
names were came into light during investigation, including the Appellant, pro-

EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st July 2020  217