9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (2) TMI 776X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... leaded that the demand is time barred and as such the Commissioner (Appeals) s order upholding the confirmation of Cenvat credit demand is not correct. - E/2543 of 2007 (SM) - - - Dated:- 24-2-2011 - Hon ble Shri Rakesh Kumar, Member (Technical) Appearance Shri S. Yadav, Advocate for the appellant. Mrs. Rimjhim Prasad, Authorized Representative (SDR) for the respondent. Per. Rakesh Kumar :- The appellant are manufacturers of sugar and molasses chargeable to Central Excise duty and they also availed the Cenvat credit of the duty paid on inputs and capital goods in terms of the provisions of Cenvat Credit Rules. In course of audit of their records in March 2004 for the period from September 2002 to January 20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce was issued on 21/7/06 and neither there is any evidence of the appellant having suppressed the relevant information with intent to wrongly avail the Cenvat credit nor any such allegation has been made in the show cause notice or proviso to Section 11A (1) has been invoked, that the appellant on 27/1/05 had addressed a letter to the Assistant Commissioner, that the issue involved in the matter has been decided in their favour and, therefore, they may be allowed to recredit the amount which had earlier been debited at the instance of audit, that subsequently the appellant vide their letter dated 5/3/05 addressed to the Assistant Commissioner informed that the amount has been recredit in the RG-23C Pt. II account, that in view of this, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bar. 3. I have carefully considered the submissions from both the sides and perused the records. 4. In this case, the appellant, on wrong Cenvat credit and wrong payment of duty on certain scrap being pointed out by the audit, had voluntarily paid the amount of Rs. 1,98,469/- on 18/3/04 by debit entry in RG-23C Pt. II account, but subsequently when they felt that this debit was wrong, they addressed a letter dated 27/1/05 to the Assistant Commissioner, wherein they requested that the amount debited by them may be allowed to be re-credited as the issue involved has been decided in their favour. Subsequently vide their letter dated 5/3/05 to the Assistant Commissioner they intimated that they have re-credited the amount in their RG-2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
