TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (5) TMI 430
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....H. No. 24 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. During the course of scrutiny of ER-1 for the month of May 2008, it was observed that the appellant had taken suo-moto credit of Rs. 1,49,222/- in RG-23C Part II and Rs. 7,812/- in PLA. This credit was taken against debit of duty in relation to the excisable goods cleared for export under ARE-1 No. 154/06-07 dated 05.3.2007, covered under invoice No. 246 dated 05.3.2007 which was exported under LUT No. 22/06 dated 12.6.2006, without payment of duty under Rule 19 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Subsequently, they have debited the duty Rs. 1,49,222/- in RG 23-C part II and Rs. 7,812 paid vide TR-6 challan No. 06/2006 dated 30.3.2007 after 25 days. On the basis of the said debit of duty, ap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... his submission that the credit which was availed by the appellant was reversed in respect of the inputs which were used for the manufacturing of exported goods cleared under Bond. It is his submission that since the exports were done under LUT/Bond, the wrong debits made by the appellant in the Cenvat Credit Register, was required to be re-credited in the respective Cenvat Register and this was not a wrong duty as has been held by the lower authorities. It is his submission that the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Ultra Tech Cement Limited 2010 (261) ELT 696 (Tri. Bang.) and decisions of this Bench in the case of Raajratna Metal Industries Limited 2008 (12) STR 773 (Tri. Ahmd.) and Radha Krishna Synthetics Pvt. Limited 2007 (218) E....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of an amount taken as suo-moto credit by the appellant having come to the conclusion that they have paid this duty twice over. 9. The undisputed facts are that the amount which has been paid in the cenvat credit and PLA is over and above the amounts which were debited by them for the consignments which were exported by availing the benefit under Rule 19 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 i.e. that they have executed LUT/Bond with the authorities for clearance of the goods without payment of duty. It is undisputed that the appellant is not required to pay any duty on these clearances made by them for export under LUT. 10. At the first blush, I would have to agreed with the submissions made by the Revenue authorities that the judgment of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....their letter dated 12th June, 2001. In fact, the letter requests the department for correcting the error. This is a simple arithmetical mistake. The departmental authorities could have advised the appellants to adjust the excess amount towards payment of duty for subsequent periods. But they advised the appellant to file a claim for refund. If at all a refund claim is required, the first letter informing the department of the mistake and requesting for permission to rectify the same should be taken as claim for the purpose of Section 11B. Alternatively, the contention of the appellant that the amount paid by mistake is not duty merits consideration. In fact, duty paid on the goods is indicated in the invoices. The amount erroneously paid in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e assessee. It is in these circumstances, the Revenue is before us. 3. Heard Shri Bhaskar, learned Counsel appearing for the Revenue and Smt. Padmini Sudaram, learned Counsel appearing for the assessee. Perused the order of the Tribunal. 4. The Tribunal, after noticing the material facts has chosen to allow the claim on the basis that the amount paid by mistake cannot be termed as duty in the case on hand. The Tribunal also stated that the time bar does not apply in such cases. Somewhat in similar circumstances, the Apex Court in India Cements Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise - 1989 (41) E.L.T. 358 has chosen to accept the case of the assessee. The Madras High Court subsequently noticing the Judgment of the Supreme Court has also c....