9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (4) TMI 770X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Central Excise law has been brought to the notice of the Bench whether any such adjustment can be done in the case of Central Excise duty payment. In the absence of any such provision in Central Excise, the correct method would have been to pay entire Central Excise duty as determined by the appellant under Self-Removal Procedure and if subsequently some refund is due the same could have been c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r(Appeal-I) of Central Excise, Kolkata, as First Appellate Authority, upheld the Order-in-Original dated 18.11.2009 passed by the Adjudicating Authority. 2. Shri Deepro Sen (Advocate) appearing on behalf of the Appellant argued that the period of dispute is from June, 2007 to February, 2008 and the RT-12 return for the period May, 2007 to February, 2008 indicated total duty paid as ₹ 29,6 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the notice of the Bench any provisions under which such revised ER-1 can be filed. 3. Shri K.Chowdhury, Supdt.(AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue argued that there is no provision for filing a revised ER-1 return and Appellant was required to pay duty payments calculated by them under Self-Removal Procedure. That if in the opinion of the Appellant there was any excess payment during the re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evised ER-1 return to argue that duty payable was actually less than what was calculated in the ER-1 return. No provision of the Central Excise law has been brought to the notice of the Bench whether any such adjustment can be done in the case of Central Excise duty payment. In the absence of any such provision in Central Excise, the correct method, as pointed out by ld.AR, would have been to pay ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
