2017 (10) TMI 887

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....DER Per: Ramesh Nair The fact of the case is that the respondent deposited an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- in the Unit No.1 account through e-payment for Central Excise duty vide GAR-7 challan No. 00361 dated 30.07.2011 instead of e-payment for Central Excise duty of Unit No.2. During the month of July 2011 the total duty liability of Unit No.1 was Rs. 5,78,103/- which was paid through their CE....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ppeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who by setting aside the order-in-original allowed the appeal of the respondent. Therefore, the Revenue is before me. 2. Shri S.V. Nair, learned Asst. Commissioner (A.R.) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterating the grounds of appeal submits that the respondent has deposited this amount through GAR 7 challan but the same amount was not taken as cred....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....de GR-7 challan No.0036188 dated 30.07.2011 which otherwise not payable by the respondent. An amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- deposited through GAR-7 challan is only towards the duty and not for anything else and cannot be said that the amount paid through GAR-7 is not towards excise duty but for something else. It is settled position that any amount which is refundable the only provision applicable is ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ake vide GAR-7 Challan No.00361 dated 30.07.2011 by mistake since the same is not covered under Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944. 9. The findings of the lower authority are totally untenable. I find that the contention of the appellant is that it was due to mistake the amounts were deposited in Unit No.1 instead of Unit No.II and the adjudicating authority found that the appellant has de....