TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (3) TMI 416
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....llant has wrongly taken the credit suo moto. Accordingly, after due process of law, the adjudicating authority vide impugned order confirmed the demand of Cenvat Credit of Rs.6,32,032/- alongwith interest and also imposed equal penalty. 3. Aggrieved by such an order, the appellant assessee preferred appeal before first appellate authority. The first appellate authority after granting the opportunity of personal hearing did not agree with the contentions raised by the appellant and dismissed the appeal by upholding the Order-In-Original. 4. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant draws my attention to the facts of the case. It is her submission that there is a clear cut finding that the appellant paid the excess duty in the mo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....excess duty during the month of March 2008 and took the suo moto credit in the month of April 2008. Only dispute is whether appellant can take suo moto credit of excess duty debited for second time payment of duty or they were required to claim in respect of the excess amount debited towards the payment of duty twice over. 7. The reliance of the Ld. Departmental Representative and the lower authorities for demand of such suo moto credit is based on the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of BDH Industries Ltd. (supra). I find that the said judgment of BDH Industries Ltd. was cited before the bench in the case of Sopariwala Exports Pvt. Ltd. (supra). The said decision of the Tribunal in the case of Sopariwala Exports Pvt. Lt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....p; 6. We have gone through the records of the case carefully. In the month of March 2001, the appellants debited excess amount in their CENVAT account to the tune of Rs. 1,58,099/-. The fact was brought to the notice of the department by the appellants in 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tter. Subsequently, a refund application was also filed by the assessee. Claim was rejected on the ground of lapse of time by the Assistant Commissioner. The same was confirmed by the Appellate Commissioner. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee moved the Tribunal. The Tribunal accepted the case of the 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 ....