9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (11) TMI 521X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n for the Respondent. ORDER 1. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of iron and steel articles. The dispute arose about availment of credit of Rs. 74,918/- in respect of inputs purchased by the appellant in the month of June, 1999. Proceedings were initiated against the appellant resulting in denial of credit of the said amount as also for confirmation of demand of duty of Rs. 45,388/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... necessary sanction/approval of the Asstt. Commissioner and took the credit suo-moto. By relying upon the Larger Bench decision in the case of BDH Industries Ltd. v. CCE 2008 (229) ELT 364 (Tri.), it stands held that the appellants are not entitled to the re-credit of the said amount. If that be so, they were directed to deposit the duty of Rs. 45,388/- and Rs. 16,153/- by way of cash in as much a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ltra Tech Cement Ltd. v. CCE 2010 (261) ELT 696 (Tri. - Bang.) and it was observed that the same is not applicable to identical facts and circumstances in as much as facts of the case before Larger Bench were different. Tribunal took note of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court's judgement in the case of Shyam Textile Mills v. UOI 2005 (67) RLT 488 (Guj.) and held that appellant could take suo-moto re-c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction raised by the Revenue is that the appellant, instead of taking the refund suo motu, should have approached them. I note that such refund of pre-deposit accrued to the appellant immediately on passing of the Tribunal's order allowing their appeal. Such credit was also availed by the appellant, under intimation to the Revenue. It is again well settled that the provisions of unjust enrichment o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evenue, I find no reasons to deny the re-credit to the appellant. It is also seen that an application was filed by the appellant before Asstt. Commissioner which does not stand decided by him even till date. As such to deny the credit to the assessee on the ground that he should have awaited the decision of the Asstt. Commissioner which incidentally does not stand passed by him till date, is neith ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
