2007 (3) TMI 72 - AT - Central Excise

Demand Appellant contended that payment of duty twice i.e. at the first instance through Cenvat account and again under the director of Range Supreintended paid through P.L.A. Held that appellant contention is not sustainable as duty demand is right

Summary

Issues:
1. Erroneous Appellate Order by Commissioner (Appeals) due to double payment of duty.
2. Disagreement on the correctness of the Appellate Order.
3. Validity of duty payment through Cenvat Account and subsequent payment through P.L.A.
4. Reversal of entry in Cenvat credit and dismissal of appeal against Order of Adjudication.

Analysis:

1. The issue at hand revolves around the contention that the Appellate Order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) was erroneous due to the appellant's payment of duty twice for the same case. The appellant had initially paid duty through Cenvat Account and subsequently paid again under the direction of the Range Superintendent through P.L.A. The learned Counsel argued that the demand of Rs. 27,000/- imposed by the authorities below was unjustified in this scenario.

2. The learned D.R. opposed the view that the Appellate Order was erroneous, suggesting no interference was necessary. Upon hearing both sides, it was observed that the first payment made through the Cenvat Account did not serve its purpose as the duty-demand was due earlier when there was no balance in the P.L.A. The proposition of payment from the Cenvat Account on a later date was deemed illogical, making the subsequent payment through P.L.A. including interest of Rs. 122/- appear justified under the Range Superintendent's direction.

3. The validity of duty payment through the Cenvat Account and the subsequent payment through P.L.A. was thoroughly examined. It was concluded that the discharge of duty liability from P.L.A. was logical given the absence of balance in the Cenvat Credit Account at the time of duty demand. The reversal of the entry from the Cenvat Account on the grounds of double discharge of liability was deemed unsubstantiated, leading to the dismissal of the appeal against the Order of Adjudication.

4. In light of the factual evidence and legal analysis presented, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) was found to be justified in dismissing the appeal against the Order of Adjudication. The forum had no choice but to concur with the Commissioner's observations based on the records available, ultimately resulting in the dismissal of the appeal.