AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (3) TMI 110
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....demand of interest of Rs. 5,37, 727/- under Section 11AA of the Act; appropriated both the amounts already paid by the appellant; imposed penalty of 25% of the duty under Section 11AC(1)(c) of the Act and also imposed penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs under Rule 25. In appeal No.E/20867/2018, the Commissioner(Appeals) rejected the appeal of the appellant seeking refund. Since the issue in both the appeals is inter-connected though two different impugned orders are passed, both appeals are taken up together for discussion and disposal. 2. Briefly, the facts of the present case are that the appellants' manufacturing godown (factory) from where the goods were manufactured and the sales godown (depot) from where the goods were sold to the buyers were loc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rest of Rs. 4,88,213/- vide Challan No.16 dt. 31/07/2014 and thereafter the appellant filed a refund claim for Rs. 10,52,311/- relatable to the duty which was paid in excess than the actual liability. The particulars relating to short payment of duty as well as refund claimed by the appellant are given herein below:- Particulars Appeal No. E/20866/2018 Appeal No. E/20867/2018 Period May 2012 to June 2014 April 2012 to April 2014 Demand / Refund Rs.19,36,869/- (Demand) Rs.10,52,311/- (Refund) Interest Rs.5,37,727/- N/A Penalty 25% of Rs. 19,36,869/- Rs. 5 lakhs N/A Demand paid and appropriated Duty Interest N/A Rs.19,43,869/- (paid and appropriated) Rs.35,444/- Rs. 4,88,213/- Rs. 5,37,727/- (paid and appropriated....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion to evade payment of taxes. In this regard, she relied upon the following decisions:- i. Cosmo Films Ltd. Vs. CCE, Aurangabad [2010(262) ELT 661 (Tri. Mum.)] ii. RAD MRO Manufacturing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE [2010(258) ELT 235 (Tri. Bang.)] iii. Mordi Textiles and Processors Ltd. Vs. CCE, Jaipur-II [2013(293) ELT 686 (Tri. Del.)] 4.2. She further submitted that the appellant has paid the entire duty of Rs. 19,36,869/- which was short paid and filed a refund claim for Rs. 10,52,311/- which was paid in excess of the actual liability. She further submitted that the Department should have allowed the appellant to make adjustment of the duties and if the adjustment was allowed, then the net liability of the appellant was only to the tune of Rs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... No.22342 dt. 25/09/2017] iv. Toyota Kirloskar Auto Parts Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Bangalore [2012(276) ELT 332 (Kar.)] v. Tilrode Chem Ltd. Vs. CCE, Bangalore [2014(314) ELT 9] 4.3. As far as interest is concerned, the learned counsel submitted that the appellant is liable to pay interest on the short payment and the appellants have paid Rs. 5,37,727/- and the same can be adjusted towards interest demand. Appeal No.E/20867/2018 5.1. The learned counsel submitted that at the instance of the Department, appellant filed refund claim of Rs. 10,52,311/- relatable to the duty which was paid in excess. The Department however, vide Order-in- original rejected part of the refund claim on the ground of time bar and in respect of the balance amount, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....)] 5.2. She further submitted that the time limit presecribed under Section 11B of the Act is not applicable for an amount collected without authority of law. 6. On the other hand, the learned AR defended the impugned orders. 7.1. After considering the submissions of both sides and perusal of the material on record, I find that on account of the fault in SAP software, it happened that with regard to certain clearances, excess duty was paid and with regard to certain clearances, short duty was paid. Further I find that when this anomaly was noticed during the audit, the appellant paid the entire short duty at the instance of the Department along with interest and also requested the Department to adjust the excess duty of Rs. 10,52,311/- ....