AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (11) TMI 467
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....factured by them by paying appropriate central excise duty. On 21.01.2006 officers representing Department of Revenue visited the factory and informed the appellant that additional duty per quintal of sugar had increased to Rs.37/- from Rs.21/- paid by the appellant for the period from 01.03.2005 to 12.05.2005 and required the appellant to pay differential duty @ Rs.16/- per quintal aggregating to Rs.5,48,144/-. Appellant complied with the oral directions of Revenue and debited Rs.5,48,144/- vide entry No.5 dated 21.01.2006 in the cenvat account maintained by them and separately paid interest through PLA. On 31.05.2007 they informed the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner that there was no increase of duty by Rs.16/- per quintal and, ther....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ugh any process of assessment including self-assessment. He has relied on the ruling by Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Union of India vs. J.K. Laxmi Cement Ltd. reported at 2018 (8) GSTL 231 (Raj.) and submitted that in the said ruling, Hon'ble High Court has held that an amount debited in cenvat account which was in excess of the appropriate payment of duty can be taken credit of by the manufacturer on his own accord. 3. Heard the learned AR who has relied on the following decisions of this Tribunal:- i) Garden Silk Mills Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise & ST, Surat reported at 2017 (350) ELT 303 (Tri.-Ahmd.). ii) BDH Industries Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-I reported at 2008 (229....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t for the payment of service tax. Therefore, the proceedings were initiated against the assessee to pay the service tax in cash. When the matter was pending before the Commissioner (Appeals), a direction was given to the assessee to make a pre-deposit of the entire amount of service tax in cash. The assessee in pursuance to the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) deposited the service tax in cash and simultaneously has suo motu credited the same amount of service tax which was paid through the CENVAT credit account. That a show cause notice was issued to deny the suo motu credit taken by the appellant. The proceedings were undertaken and ultimately it was held that the assessee cannot suo motu credit the amount in its account. The Tr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ired to be reversed. 7. The somewhat similar controversy came up before the Gujarat High Court in case of S. Subrahmanyan & Co. v. Commissioner, 2011 (268) E.L.T. 497 which has held as under : - "In the present case, we do not need to expand the issue by examining the question of refund under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, Since facts are rather peculiar and simple. As held and observed by the Tribunal, the respondent had already paid excise duty of Rs. 3.58 lacs. Part of the VAT was not paid. While paying difference, the respondent erroneously once over-paid the excise duty of Rs. 3.58 lacs. This mistake was detected shortly thereafter and before the end of the month, the respondent made necessary, entries in the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ar circumstances, the Apex Court in India Cements Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise - 1989 (41) E.L.T. 358 has chosen to accept the case of the assessee. The Madras High Court subsequently noticing the judgment of the Supreme Court has also chosen to hold that the claim is reasonable on the facts of this case. In the light of the case laws, we are of the view that the order of the Tribunal does not require any interference by us. No question of law arises. The order is based on the law laid down by the Apex Court." 9. Therefore, in view of the judgment of the Gujarat High Court there is no error committed by the Tribunal while holding that the amount which has already been paid in cash to satisfy the demand of the revenue with re....