TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (7) TMI 218
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....[Order].- M/s Genus Electrotech Ltd. are engaged in the manufacture and clearance of Colour TV, Washing Machine etc. They filed refund claim of Rs.6,29,068/-. The appellants are availing benefit of Notification No.39/01-C.E., dt.30.1.07 which provides for refund of duty paid from PLA subject to conditions prescribed therein. It was noticed by the Range supdtt. that in Oct. & Nov.05, the appe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....06, dt.20.4.06 and therefore the claim for refund of Rs.6,29,068/- cannot be considered as a refund claim under Para 2 of Notification No.39/01 and the notification does not provide for entertaining supplementary refund claim. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the decision of the lower authority stating that the payment made by the appellant is nothing but reversal of cenvat credit wrongly availed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of reversing the credit in the cenvat register, when it was pointed out by the Range Supdtt., the appellant made the payment in cash. If they were to reverse the credit, automatically utilization of cenvat credit for payment of duty would have come down to that extent and payment through PLA would have gone up correspondingly and the appellant would have got the refund under Notification No.39/01.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dit. It should have been treated as payment of duty through PLA and when the Assistant Commissioner sanctioned the refund, he should have noticed the excess payment, and should have checked up what is the reason for the appellant claiming lower amount as refund. I do not find anything in the notification which is against entertaining supplementary refund claim. It is nobody's case that if the Assi....