9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 1644X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se Act - Held that:- there is no dispute about the fact that the said credit which was originally debited, was not taken into account at the time of final debit of the inadmissible CENVAT credit. As such admittedly there was double debit entries. - Denial of the same by the department on the technical ground of non-filing of refund application is neither proper nor justified. It is nothing but cor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... they availed the CENVAT credit in respect of inputs used in both exempted and dutiable products. As a result of audit conducted in their factory, they were directed to reverse CENVAT credit relatable to the inputs used in the manufacture of exempted final products. They accordingly did so by reversing an amount of ₹ 4,30,325/-. 2. Subsequently, on conclusion of the investigations it was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... passed by the lower authorities denying them recredit of the said amount. Hence the present appeal. 4. The short dispute required to be decided in the present appeal is as to whether the appellant was right in taking recredit of ₹ 4,30,325/- or they were required to file a refund application in terms of provisions of Section 11B of Central Excise Act. I note that otherwise there is no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing but correction of entries in the accounts maintained by the assessee, which do not involve any ' lis' and any legal issue requiring the department to interfere. Further the said recredit was made under intimation to the Revenue in which case if the Revenue had any objection, they should have raised the same at the point of recredit itself. 6. In view of the foregoing discussion, I f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
