9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (8) TMI 582X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... revenue submits that the respondents debited the amount of Rs. 2,72,448/- on 31-7-2005 from Cenvat account and filed refund claim on 29-8-2006. Which is beyond the stipulated period of one year as prescribed under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Held that- I agree with the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals). Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected. - E/2431/2007- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted the refund claim as time bar. He also submits that the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of BDH Industries Ltd. v. CCE (Appeals), Mumbai reported in 2008 (229) E.L.T. 364 (Tribunal-Larger Bench) held that the assessee is not entitled to avail suo moto credit and they have to file refund claim under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. It is his submission that there is no pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Cenvat Account and PLA account deposited in cash deposit. In this regard, he relied upon the decisions of the Tribunal as under :- (a) Hind Spinners v. CCE, Bhopal - 2005 (187) E.L.T. 266 (Tribunal-Delhi). (b) CCE, Pune v. Raymond Ltd. - 2006 (201) E.L.T. 454 (Tribunal-Mumbai) 4. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the records, I find that there is no dispute that the respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ason to deny the re-credit the amount in their Cenvat Account. The Larger Bench decision as relied upon by the ld. DR is applicable on suo moto credit. The present case is of adjustment of the amount from one account to the another. Therefore, Larger Bench decision is not applicable to the present case. The finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) is reproduced below:- "The appellant have submitted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
