2024 (11) TMI 984

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... been upheld. Since the issue involved in both the appeals is identical therefore, both the appeals are taken up together for discussion and disposal. For the sake of convenience, the details of both appeals are given here in below : Appeal No E/60153/2023 E/60154/2023 Period involved June 2019 June 2019 Refund amount involved 15,00,000/- Rs. 32,77,590/- (Refund claim- Rs.23,26,476/- + Interest of Rs. 9,51,114/- Order-in-Appeal no. JNK- EXCUS -APP-166-22-23 dated 08.12.2022 JNK- EXCUS -APP-165-22-23 dated 08.12.2022 Order-in-Original 514/AC/R-III/Cons/2019 dt 09.12.2019 512/AC/R-III/Cons/2019 dt 04.12.2019 Initial Refund letter 15-06-2019 29-07-2019 Refund letter for excess amount app....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the period Feb 2012 to April 2012, details of the same are given here in below : Month OIO No & Date Amount Rejected on A/C of Value addition Refund Amount appropriated Feb 2012 546/DC/R(S)JMU/12dt 07.06.2012 40,50,855/- 15,00,000/- + 32,77,590/- March 2012 547/DC/R(S)JMU/12dt 07.06.2012 94,85,939/-   April 2012 776/DC/R(S)JMU/12dt 12.07.2012 81,98,794/-   Total 2,17,35,588/- 47,77,590/- (in total of both the appeals) 2.3 Appellant feeling aggrieved with OIO's filed Appeals before the Learned Commissioner Appeals CGST (Jammu) against OIO No. 512 and 514. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) vide impugned OIA's has upheld the order of the adjudicating Authority of appropriation ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....CEZA01036022021051003421 RBI RBISOCBICER 3 APR-2012 776/DC/R(S)JMU/12 DT 1207/12 81,98,794 16.06.2021 000000CEZA0103602202105123002 RBI RBISOCBICER   Total 2,17,35,588           2.5 The appellant further submits that since the full demand amounts on account of Value addition have already been deposited voluntarily therefore the above said amounts of Rs 15,00,000/- + Rs 32,77,590/- appropriated vide OlO's no. 512 & 514 and upheld vide impugned OIA's dated 08.12.2022 are excess recoveries against the said demand already deposited voluntarily and therefore, the revenue is required to refund the same to the appellant. 3. Heard both the parties and perused ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of Rs.2,17,35,588/- on account of value addition confirmed for the period February 2012 to April 2012, the details of which are given in the above table. 7. Further, I find that when the appeal against the Order-in-Original was pending before the Commissioner (Appeals), the appellant Voluntarily deposited the demand against all three OIOs relating to February 2012 to April 2012 and intimated the jurisdictional Deputy commissioner Jammu vide letters dated 14.08.21 duly acknowledged on 26.08.2021 and the copies of challans have also been produced showing the payment of the entire demand of Rs. 2,17,35,588/-. Further, I find that the appellant has voluntarily deposited the entire demand amount and informed the Department but the Department ....