9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 511X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cular, has been rectified by the appellants by taking the suo motu credit of the reversed amount which is not the same as taking refund of excess duty amount paid. Demand not sustainable - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Appeal No. E/41878/2015 - Final Order No. 42091/2016 - Dated:- 28-10-2016 - Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) Shri N. Viswanathan, Advocate For the Appellant Shri R. Subramaniyan, AC (AR) For the Respondent ORDER The facts of the case are that appellant, on being pointed out by internal audit of the department of excess credit availed by them, had reversed an amount of ₹ 17,52,664/- with interest on 2.4.2009. As per the learned counsel, the said reversal of credit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wise to the appellant. It is also not disputed that the appellants have reversed the credit based on a wrong advice at the time of internal audit which subsequently was found to be wrong and accordingly they took re-credit. This is only a technical adjustment. I find that the issue at hand is fully covered by decision of this very Tribunal in the case of Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. Vs CCE Pune 2012 (26) STR 417 (Tri.-Chennai). The relevant portions of the above Tribunal's order are reproduced herein for reference :- 6. However, I find that the present case is quite different. This is a case where the appellants had taken credit of service tax paid on Mobile Phones for the period from Sept. 04 to Nov. 05. This was not a case of making any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, the credit is not admissible for this period in terms of the earlier rules as also circular dated 20-6-2003. To that extent, the reversal would be actual payment of duty and the appellants were not entitled to take credit of the same. This position is also admitted by the learned advocate who has undertaken to ensure that the amount would be paid back within a month from today. 8. As regards the interest amount paid by the appellants, the same amounts to excess payment except to the extent it relates to the period 1-9-2004 to 9-9-2004. The refund of the same is required to be considered in terms of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as made applicable to the service tax cases. In view of the fact that the appellants have fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
