2017 (5) TMI 141

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... was utilized irregularly. Thereafter, the appellant reaccredited the amount paid earlier in their Cenvat account. According to the Revenue, the re-credit of the cenvat amount is irregular and suo-moto re-credit is not admissible under the law. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand of Rs. 227,165/- alongwith interest and imposed penalty. By the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant. 2. Heard both sides and perused the appeal records. 3. The Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant contested the demand on merits as well as on limitation. The Ld. Counsel referred to the following decisions. (1) Neptune Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmadabad reported in 20....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....o motu credit of excess paid duty by double debit in PLA and the and credit was taken in RG 23A Part-II; noticing contrary decisions of Tribunal in the case of Motorola India Pvt. Limited and Comfit Sanitary Napkins (I) Pvt. Limited. I find that the law as has been decided by the Larger Bench seems to be incorrect on the face of the fact that the judgment of the Tribunal in Motorola India Pvt. Limited was carried in appeal before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and their Lordships have upheld the said order. It is seen from the case of BDH Industries Limited that the said judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka was, not brought to the notice of the Larger Bench when they heard the Larger Bench reference. In order to appreciate t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....allow the appeal with consequential relief." 11. Aggrieved by such an order of the Division Bench of the Tribunal, Revenue preferred appeal before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, wherein their Lordships have passed the following order :- [Judgment]. - Revenue is before us aggrieved by the order dated 1-9-2005 passed in appeal No. E/83/2004 by the Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore. 2. The respondent-assessee by mistake debited an amount of Rs. 1,58,099/- in excess of the duty payable in their PLA/CENVAT account for the month of March 2001. The same was brought to the notice of the Department by the respondent in terms of a letter dated 12-6-2001. The authorities directed the respondent to file a refund claim....