9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (8) TMI 553X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s held by the original authority - Therefore, the question of adjustment of Rs. 8,432/- towards penalty due from the respondents does not arise - Therefore decided in the favour of the assessee and refund is allowed - E/231-232/2010 - 887-888/2010 - Dated:- 11-8-2010 - Shri M. Veeraiyan, J. REPRESENTED BY : Shri C. Rangaraju, SDR, for the Appellant. Shri K. Balasubramanian, Advocate, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spondents subsequently paid a sum of Rs. 66,713/- on 30-10-08 towards penalty in terms of first proviso to Section 11AC. 3.4 The respondent claimed refund of Rs. 8,342/- (Rs. 7,669 as excess paid duty and Rs. 673/- as excess paid interest). The original authority vide order dated 24-7-09, holding that there is no unjust enrichment allowed the refund of Rs. 8,342/- However, he also held that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... no specific ground has been raised in the appeal memorandum filed by the department regarding the penalty having been paid on 31st day. He, alternatively, submits that the penalty has been paid within 30 days as stipulated under first proviso to Section 11AC. He draws my attention to Section 12 of the Limitation Act, and submits that in the light of the said provision, the date of receipt of the o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing not been paid on 31st day, a vague inference could be made from the grounds of appeal to this effect, as submitted by the Ld. SDR. Therefore, this ground is also being dealt with. The Section 12 of the Limitation Act, 1963 reads as under :- Exclusion of time in legal proceedings. - (1) In computing the period of limitation for any suit, appeal or application, the day from which such period ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ity confirmed amounts lower than the amount deposited by the respondents. In the given facts and circumstances of the case, the excess amount is obviously a deposit which requires to be refunded to the respondents and therefore, there is no infirmity in the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), in this regard also. 8. In view of the above, appeals by the department are rejected. (Order dictated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
