TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (12) TMI 1320
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....u 1. The appellant, M/s. Specetech Equipment & Structurals Pvt. Ltd., are registered manufacturers. The appellant were asked by the Revenue to pay an amount of Rs. 11,71,111/- in PLA vide letter dated 08/06/2009. The appellant paid the said amount on 26/06/2009 in PLA and sought re-credit of the duty paid through Cenvat during 20/06/2008 to 13/07/2008 as re-credit in their account on 29/06/2009. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ommissioner. The Commissioner (Appeals) observed that the refund claim should have been filed within one year of the relevant date which in this case was the date of payment of duty. 2. The learned Counsel for the appellant relied on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Standard Surfactants Ltd., Vs. CCE, Bhopal - 2001 (132) ELT 79 (Tri-Del) wherein it has been held that duty first paid t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nvat which was earlier paid by them. However, they were directed to file a refund claim before the Assistant Commissioner of the Division. I find that the decision of the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Ghaziabad Vs. Sharda Forging & Stamping Pvt. Ltd. - 2009 (240) ELT 223 (Tri-Del) and Standard Surfactants Ltd., (supra) is squarely applicable to the facts of the case. Para 4 of the decision of the T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vat credit account. It is contended that the double payment by the appellants is not in dispute and when the Departmental authorities have themselves observed that the first payment through Modvat credit account was erroneous and in pursuance of their direction, the appellants made payment through their PLA, they could have credited back their Modvat account, but by way of abundant precautions, th....