TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (6) TMI 293
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he month of February 2010 they were required to make payment of Rs.58,40,599/- within 6th March 2010. They made the payment, but inadvertently in the payment documents, the code number was not correctly written. By mistake code number of Hyderabad unit was written instead of Kolkata Unit in the GAR-7 Challan. This mistake was detected by the Appellant subsequently and then they themselves took up the matter with the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Taratala Division. However, at the instance of the Department, the Appellants made payment again of the aforesaid amount of Rs. 58,40,599/- on 25.08.2010 and 26.08.2010. Since the said payment was made again through PLA, the Department initiated the proceeding by issuing a Show Cause Notice....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oked in such a situation. We find from the records that the Ld.Commissioner failed to appreciate that the Appellants had three units at Kolakta, Hyderabad and Faridabad. For the month of February the appellants were required to make payment with 6th March 2010 and while making such payment for the March 2010 for an amount of Rs.58,40,599/- from their Kolkata unit from PLA code number of Hyderabad unit was wrongly mentioned in the GAR-7 Challan and as a result the amount though deposited, but under a wrong assessee code number. It is the submission of the Appellants in their grounds of appeal that mentioning of the wrong code number was through inadvertence by the person, who was handling the e-payment matters. On detection of the mistake th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t of duty quoting wrong code number cannot be considered as non-payment and in such a situation, the proceeding initiated by the Ld.Commissioner is unwarranted. 5. We find that the issue is no more res integra and is squarely covered by the judgement of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of M/s. Goyal MG Gases Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Others reported in 2017 (8) TMI 1515 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT, wherein it is categorically held that when Rule 8 (3A) is declared ultra vires by the different High Courts then the Revenue cannot take a different stand contrary to the said judgements. The Hon'ble Court further declared Rule 8(3A) as invalid which is not stayed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 6. We find that the Hon'ble Gujarat High C....