2011 (12) TMI 368

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... M/s Decolight Ceramic Ltd, Morbi and raised invoice No. 18 dated 30.03.08 for which they had paid service tax amounting to Rs. 3,02,944/- vide RG 23 Pt-II E.No.660 dated 30.03.2008. Thus they had paid total service tax amounting to Rs. 3,19,012/- in RG.23 Pt-II. Further, the said appellant also paid service tax amounting to Rs. 3,02,944/- against bill No. 18 dated 30.03.2008 vide challan No. 12 dated 05.05.08 and service tax amount of Rs. 16,058/- against bill No 17 dated 30.03.08 vide challan No. 0193 dated 03.10.2008, thus resulted into double payment of sendee tax amount of Rs. 3,19,012/-. Thereafter the appellant took the credit of Rs.3,19,012/- in their Cenvat credit account vide RG 23 Part-II E.No.1109 and 1110 dated 17.03.09. On bei....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....(LB) was not applicable. He submits that this view has been upheld by the Tribunal in the decisions in the case of S. Subrahmanyan &, Co. v. CCE 2011 (268) ELT 497 (Tri. - Ahmd.), ESDEE Paints Ltd. v. CCE 2010 (249) ELT 225 (Tri. - Ahmd.). Further, he also relies upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Raj Petro Specialities (P.) Ltd. v. CCE [Final Order No. A/917/2009-WZB/Ahd. dated 21-5-2009] where also the reversal of credit entry was made at the instance of the Revenue and thereafter refund claim filed was rejected on the ground of limitation. 4. Learned SDR Submits that the refund claim filed by the appellant is for the service tax paid on 30.03.08. The subsequent reversal of debit entry and reversal of credit entry are not....