2019 (4) TMI 898

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....llowed the refund claim as well along with applicable interest and penalty; and ordered appropriation of tax and interest paid by the assessee. 2. Today when the matter is taken up for hearing, Ld. Advocate, Shri M.S. Nagaraja appeared for the assessee and Ld. DR, Shri K. Veerabhadra Reddy, ADC, appeared for the Revenue. 3.1 The contentions of the Ld. Advocate, in brief are: • The appellants had imported capital goods during the period November 2005 to January 2006 and the same were deposited in the public bonded warehouse under Warehousing Bills of Entry; • The goods were cleared from the warehouse under EPCG Scheme without payment of Additional Duty of Customs (CVD); • The staff in the factory ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....gain remitted an amount of Rs. 41,09,664/- vide TR6 Challan No. 007/2007-08 dated 5.7.2007, which is acknowledged in the SCN; • The appellants also paid interest of Rs. 7,29,401/- vide Challan No. 5/2007-08 dated 3.7.2007, intimated the same vide letter dated 4.7.2007; • The appellants informed the ACCE, Salem II Division vide letter SISCOL/S/CEX/2007 dated 9.7.2007 about their payments; • Notwithstanding the fact that the appellants had paid the Cenvat of Rs. 41,09,664/- on 5.7.5007 by cash as per the directions of the jurisdictional ACCE along with interest of Rs. 7,29,401/-, department issued SCN No. 106/2010 (Commissioner) dated 01.12.2010; etc. 3.2 Based on the above pleadings, Ld. Advocate sub....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....) ELT 257 (SC) iii) Anand Nishikawa Co. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Meerut 2005 (188) ELT 149 (SC) iv) Continental Foundation Joint Venture Vs. CCE, Chandigarh 2007 (216) ELT 177 (SC.) 4. Per contra, Ld. DR supported the findings of the adjudicating authority. 5. We have considered the rival contentions, gone through the documents/orders placed on record and have also gone through various decisions/orders referred to during the course of arguments. On going through the SCN, there is no allegation levelled as to suppression or mis-statement, etc; to invoke larger period of limitation. It is also not in dispute that on being pointed out the appellants had reversed the entire Cenvat credit of Rs. 41,09,664/- in RG23C (Capital Goods Register) whi....