9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (6) TMI 340X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt. [Order per : T.K. Jayaraman, Member (T)]. This appeal has been filed against the Order-in-Appeal No. 5/2005-C.E., dated 31-1-2005 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Bangalore. 2. The appellants opted to avail the benefit of Notification No. 9/2003-CE dated 1-3-2003 from the beginning of the financial year 2003-04. In terms of the above notification, they were r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , he demanded an amount of Rs. 1,87,674/- along with interest. The appellants approached the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the Order-in-Original. The appellants have come before this Tribunal challenging the impugned order. 3. Shri Rajesh Chander Kumar, the learned Advocate, appeared for the appellants and Shri K. Sambi Reddy, the learned JDR, for the Revenue. 4. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rged duty in excess of its liability and thus, the duty paid in excess is refundable in law. That such duty paid in excess instead of being refunded cannot be said to recoverable from the appellant. (iv) There is no loss of revenue and hence the question of making demand of duty under Section 11A of the Cenvat Rules does not arise. 5. Heard both sides. 6. The appellants exercised an option ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l the value of clearances exceed rupees hundred lakhs. But, the appellants, even before reaching the value of clearances of rupees hundred lakhs, chose to pay full rate of duty of 16%. It is seen that these duties have completely been paid through Cenvat credit. It is very clear that the appellants are choosing to withdraw the option in the middle thereby violating the above mentio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
