9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (3) TMI 835X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in their Personal Ledger Account. 2. Ld. DR on behalf of the Revenue submits that they have deposited the excess amount in their PLA vide Sl. No. 4 dated 3-6-2005 and filed the refund claim on 4-7-2006, which is barred by limitation. He further submits that the Commissioner (Appeals) erroneously observed that the respondent could have taken re-credit of the excess amount debited by them. He also submits that the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) is contrary to the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of B.D.H. Industries Ltd. v. CCE (Appeals), Mumbai-I reported in 2008 (229) E.L.T. 364 (T-LB). He also submits that the Larger Bench of the Tribunal held that any refund claim even the excess amount would be subject to unjus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 10,50,000/- instead of Rs. 10,00,000/-. Thus, there is a excess payment of Rs. 50,000/-, for which they claimed refund by their letter dated 25-5-2006. Ld. DR submits that this letter cannot be treated as a refund for the reason that the same was written to the Superintendent of Central Excise, who is not the competent authority. He also submits that the refund claim in proper form was filed on 4-7-2006, which is the relevant time in terms of Section 11B of the Act. 5. I am unable to accept this submission of the ld. DR. It is seen that the respondent by letter dated 25-5-2006 addressed to the Superintendent of Central Excise copy forwarded to the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise claimed the refund of the excess amount debited by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the judgement of the Supreme Court has also chosen to hold that the claim is reasonable on the facts of this case. In the light of the case laws, we are of the view that the order of the Tribunal does not require any interference by us. No question of law arises. The order is based on the law laid down by the Apex Court. 7. In the present case, there is no dispute that the respondent debited excess amount by mistake in PLA. So, the decision relied upon by the ld. DR would not apply in this case. 8. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the decision of the Hon ble High Court and Tribunal, I do not find any reason to interfere the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Revenue i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
