SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- Ruma Pal and Arijit Pasayat, JJ.

Civil Appeal No. 3804 of 2000. D/d. 31.3.2005.

Gem Manufacturers (P) Ltd. - Appellant

Versus

Commissioner Of Central Excise, Coimbatore - Respondent

Central Excise Act, 1944 Section 35B Appeal to Appellate Tribunal - Pre-deposit - Claim of refund on withdrawal of appeal - Assessee withdrawing its appeal on the understanding that the relief sought by it would be granted by the Department - Department did not dispute that the appellant was not liable to pay for the period during which the appellant had paid under protest, but the appellant was liable for the previous period and therefore the pre-deposit made by the appellant was not liable to be returned to the appellant - Appeal directed to be treated as deemed revived and further directed to be heard and decided expeditiously.

[Para 3]

ORDER

Ruma Pal, J. - In this appeal, the appellant has challenged the refusal of the respondent authorities to refund the amount which had been paid by the appellant by way of pre-deposit in the appellant's appeal. It was the appellant's case in the appeal that the dispute relating to the classification of switch fuses and fuse switches manufactured by the appellant were not classifiable under Tariff Sub-Heading 8536.90 but under Sub-Heading 8537 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.

2. According to the appellant, the appeal was withdrawn by the appellant on the understanding that the appellant would be granted the relief which had been sought for in the appeal, by the Department. The Department has contended that they did not dispute that the appellant was not liable to pay for the period during which the appellant had paid under protest, but the appellant was liable for the previous period and therefore the pre-deposit made by the appellant was not liable to be returned to the appellant.

3. We are of the view that since the appellant had withdrawn the appeal on the basis of what it understood to be a concession by the Department of the assessee, we dispose of this appeal by reviving Appeal No. 1973 of 1987 which had been withdrawn from the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT) [now Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT)]. The appeal will now be heard by CESTAT in the usual course. It is expected that the Tribunal will dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible.

.