2013 (11) TMI 1218

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tral Excise Tariff, 1985. A demand notice was issued to them on 30.07.2008 alleging that the Appellant had availed the recredit of CENVAT Credit of Rs.3,40,680/- reversed earlier suo motu without following the proper procedure laid down under the relevant provisions of Central Excise Act, 1944 and the Rules made thereunder. The said demand was confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise and equivalent penalty was imposed under Rule 15(1) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. Aggrieved by the said Order, the Appellant preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) who dismissed their appeal. Hence, the present Appeal. 2. The ld. Advocate for the Appellant, at the outset, submitted that the Appellant had tak....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ettled by the Larger Bench in the case of BDH Industries by observing as follows:-              12. We find that there is no provision under Central Excise Act and Rules allowing suo moto taking of credit or refund without sanction by the proper officer. The appellant's contention that refund in respect of duty paid twice cannot be considered as refund of duty and is only the accounting error does not appeal to us as the debit entry made in the accounts is towards payment of duty only and therefore refund of these amounts has to be considered as refund of duty only. The PLA account and the credit accounts are required to be submitted to the department and any correction carried ....