TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (3) TMI 412
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../- payable by them for the month of December, 2014. In order to rectify the error, on 31/01/2015, the appellant suo moto took credit of the excess payment of Rs. 18,19,855/- and the same was also reflected in their ER-1 return for the period January, 2015. On being told by the Range Superintendent, after almost 18 months of reversal, that suo moto re-credit was not permitted, the appellants reversed the sum of Rs. 18,19,855/- on 29.06.2016 and filed the refund claim on 01.07.2016 for refund of the said amount of Rs. 18,19,855/- as per the directions of the Range Superintendent. The adjudicating authority vide order-in-original dated 30/09/2016 rejected the refund claim on the ground that it is barred by limitation under Section 11B of Centr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Range Superintendent on 29.06.2016 was the relevant date for debiting of duty the said direction of reversal by Range Superintendent was to be considered as the relevant date for claiming of refund which was filed immediately on 01.07.2016. The Learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue reiterated the findings recorded in the impugned order and prayed for dismissal of appeal. 4. In this matter, the refund claim has been rejected only the ground that it was submitted beyond one year from the date of making excess payment i.e. December, 2014. The authorities below failed to appreciate that the issue is only of correction of wrong entry and since the excess payment which was made in the month of December, 2014 was not due, it become....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(5) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. When that being the case, in respect of those services specifically mentioned under Rule 6(5) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 as it existed during the relevant period viz., 2004-2006 getting the reversal of the entry is in tune with its stand taken, which was accepted by the Tribunal in the earlier round of litigation. (ii) We do not find any good ground to hold that it was a case of refund of duly falling under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and that the assessee was to comply with the provisions of Section 11B of the Act. The view of the Tribunal that the assessee should seek reversal in the appropriate judicial forum, if the assessee was aggrieved by the earlier order herein does not a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ation for refund or duty was required to be made under Section 11B ibid is without any basis. It is not a case of refund of duty but a case of reversal of an entry in the books relating to CENVAT Credit and on this aspect, I get the support from the above decision of the Hon'ble High Court. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore also on a similar issue in the matter of Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore-III vs. Motorola India Pvt. Ltd. [2006 (206) E.L.T. 90 (Kar)] while rejecting the appeal filed by the Revenue against the decision of Tribunal held as under:- The Tribunal, after noticing the material facts has chosen to allow the claim on the basis that the amount paid by mistake cannot be termed as duty in the case on han....