2017 (6) TMI 425

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Alstom Industrial Products Ltd., Kolkata to consign the goods directly to M/s. JSW Steel Ltd. The invoice was addressed to the appellant while the goods were directly sent to M/s. JSW Steel Ltd. The appellants availed the CENVAT credit on the strength of the original invoice of M/s. Alstom Industrial Products Ltd. on 1.9.2007 and they had also confirmed that M/s. JSW Steel Ltd. had availed the CENVAT credit based on the duplicate copy of the invoice issued by the M/s. Alstom. Further, they invoice on M/s. JSW Steel Ltd. for the said goods vide Invoice No.267 to 269 dt.31.8.2007 involving duty amount of Rs. 21,32,283/-. Meanwhile at the time of audit, it was insisted upon the appellant to pay the duty on goods not received in their manufac....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ent of credit by assessee as on traded goods, original authority rejected the refund claim under Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944. Aggrieved by the Order-in-Original, the appellant filed the appeal before the Commissioner (A) on the ground that their claim is under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act and the Original authority has rejected the claim on the ground not stated in the show-cause notice. The commissioner (A) after considering the submission of the appellant rejected the appeal, hence the present appeal. 3. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without considering the facts and circumst....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Ltd. Vs. CCE: 2008 (227) ELT 448 wherein it has been held that if credit is reversed erroneously on the insistence of audit, then the assessee can claim refund of the same. He further submitted that payments of duty and availing of credit initially is not at all the question of dispute, rather the payment of duty second time was at the insistence of the audit and it was that the goods were wrongly unnecessarily subjected to duty. He further submitted that they have wrongly paid the duty involved on goods which are not to be subject to duty, wrong payment was neutralized by availing CENVAT credit on the subject goods. Demanding duty on the goods again by the audit was not justified inasmuch as it amounts to demand of duty twice on the same....