TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (1) TMI 505
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....istake the quantity of the inputs was multiplied with quantity of inputs instead of multiplying the same with unit price and thus the duty was computed incorrectly and duty was paid by debit of CENVAT Credit. In view of this incorrect debit in the cenvat credit account the appellant reversed the excess CENVAT credit utilized for the payment of duty than what was actually required to be debited. Further, the Appellant had also committed a mistake by inadvertently paying the duty twice on 'spring washers' and the excess CENVAT credit utilized by the Appellant was reversed in January 2010. Alleging that the Appellant had wrongfully taken Suo moto credit without any supporting documents and in the absence of any provision in CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 relating to availment of Suo moto CENVAT credit, proceedings were initiated and Adjudication authority as per the impugned order confirmed the demand, recovery of the suo motto availment of CENVAT credit availed by the Appellant with interest and also imposed penalty. Aggrieved by the said order, present appeal is filed before the Tribunal. 3. When the appeal came up for hearing, the Learned Counsel for the Appellant draws our a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tena of decisions including; i. M/s Bharat Electronics Ltd Vs. CCE, Meerut, - 2004 (165) ELT 485 (SC) ii. M/s Haldia Petrochemicals Ltd Vs. Commr. of ST - 2024 (4) TMI 10 - CESTAT, Kolkata iii. MRPL Vs. CCE & ST, Mangalore-2019-VIL-413-CESTAT-BLR-CE iv. M/s Sopariwala Exports Pvt Ltd. Vs. CCE, Vadodara - 2013 (5) TMI 430 - CESTAT, Ahmedabad v. M/s Polyhose India (Rubber) Pvt Ltd. Vs. CCE, Chennai - 2025 (1) TMI 932 - CESTAT, Chennai. 7. The Learned Counsel also draws our attention to the decision of this Tribunal in the matter of M/s. Sopariwala Exports Pvt Ltd. Vs. CCE, Vadodara (Supra) wherein it is held that:- "10. At the first blush, I would have to agree with the submissions made by the Revenue authorities that the Judgment of the Larger Bench in the case of BDH Industries Limited (supra) would be applicable in this case as the identical facts were decided by the Larger Bench but on deeper consideration, I find that the reference to Larger Bench was made by me in the case of BDH Industries Limited, sitting singly, only on the ground that the appellant had taken Suo-moto credit of excess paid duty by double debit in PLA a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....wherein their Lordships have passed the following order :- [Judgment]. - Revenue is before us aggrieved by the order dated 1-9-2005 passed in appeal No. E/83/2004 by the Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore. 2. The respondent-assessee by mistake debited an amount of Rs. 1,58,099/- in excess of the duty payable in their PLA/CENVAT account for the month of March 2001. The same was brought to the notice of the Department by the respondent in terms of a letter dated 12-6-2001. The authorities directed the respondent to file a refund claim. Another letter was submitted by the assessee stating therein that there was an error committed in the matter. Subsequently, a refund application was also filed by the assessee. Claim was rejected on the ground of lapse of time by the Assistant Commissioner. The same was confirmed by the Appellate Commissioner. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee moved the Tribunal. The Tribunal accepted the case of the assessee. It is in these circumstances, the Revenue is before us. 3. Heard Shri Bhaskar, learned Counsel appearing for the Revenue and Smt. Padmini Sudaram, learned Counsel appearing for the assessee. Peru....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....A 1944. Hence the question of suo-moto credit/refund is not admissible as any duty paid by the appellant has to be refunded only through the process of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. As rightly argued by the Revenue it has been categorically held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mafatlal Industries (supra), Sahakari Khand Udyog Mandal Ltd. (supra) and by the Larger Bench in the case of BDH Industries Ltd. (supra) that unless the duty is held to be unconstitutional there is no question of claiming refund under any other provisions other than what is specified in the Central Excise Act, 1944. Therefore, I agree with the fact that the appellant should not have taken recredit of duty but should have filed a refund claim under Section 11B of the Central Excise, 1944." 9. The learned AR as regards invoking the extended period of limitation, submits that Appellant have not disclosed that they have taken Suo moto credit either in their returns or in any communication to the Department. The contention that ER-1 returns were filed, does not mean that Department is informed about the credit and there is no mention or indication of availment of CENVAT credit on ....