9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 389X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee should therefore make payment of the said amount again. Any delay would invite interest and penalty. Held that:- whatever be the accounting difficulty, when undisputed fact is that the petitioner did pay a certain excise duty, merely mentioning wrong code in the process, cannot result into such harsh consequence of the entire payment not being recognized as valid, incurring further liability of repayment of the basic duty with interest and penalties. Such amount was deposited by the petitioner with the Government of India and it was duly credited in the Government account. It is not even the case of the respondents that the petitioner had any other code by the number and for which there was separate manufacturing activity inviting s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... DCD7232REM002. The petitioner immediately thereupon pointed out this issue to the Audit Officer under letter dated 19.03.2015 in detail explaining he background leading to such mistake. On 05.05.2015, the Department wrote to the petitioner that the assessee code now cannot be changed and only remedy available to the petitioner would be to seek refund. It was conveyed to the petitioner that the duty paid in the wrong assessee code cannot be treated as payment of excise duty for the month of July 2014 and the assessee should therefore make payment of the said amount again. Any delay would invite interest and penalty. 2.2 It is this letter dated 05.05.2015 the petitioner has challenged in the present petition. Pending the petition, the peti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng wrong code in the process, cannot result into such harsh consequence of the entire payment not being recognized as valid, incurring further liability of repayment of the basic duty with interest and penalties. Such amount was deposited by the petitioner with the Government of India and it was duly credited in the Government account. It is not even the case of the respondents that the petitioner had any other code by the number AADCD7232REM001 and for which there was separate manufacturing activity inviting separate duty liability. Indisputably, thus, the petitioner had singular duty liability for which the actual payment was also made. Under the circumstances, the impugned communication dated 05.05.2015 and notice dated 21.07.2015 are qu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
