2016 (12) TMI 922

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....) Shri C.S. Biradar, Advocate for the appellant Shri V.K. Shastri, Asstt. Commissioner (AR) for the respondent Per: Ramesh Nair: The facts of the case is that the appellant while clearing the inputs as such under Rule 57F(3) of Central Excise Rules 1944 paid excise duty on the transaction value as against the duty payable equal to the amount of MODVAT credit availed on such inputs. Acc....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... is before us. 2. Shri C.S. Biradar, Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the issue involved is the payment of excess duty on removal of input as such under Rule 57F(3) of Central Excise Rules, 1944. He submits that, in the rule there is no bar for payment of excise duty in excess of what was payable. The only requirement is that the duty paid on the inputs removed as such should not ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....held by the Commissioner (Appeals) in respect of the amount which was paid in excess on removal of inputs as such under Rule 57F(3) of Central Excise Rules, 1944. It is necessary to ascertain whether such case is covered by provisions of Section 11A which is reproduced below: "Section 11A. Recovery of duties not levied or not paid or short-levied or short-paid or erroneously refunded- (1) Wh....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ssued only in respect of duty short-paid or not paid. In the present case the fact that duty was paid in excess is not under dispute. This is not a case where there is any short-payment or non-payment of duty. Therefore, excess paid duty cannot be again recovered under the provisions of Section 11A. We also considered the submissions that the similar issue has been decided by the Commissioner (App....