9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 922X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the appellant Shri V.K. Shastri, Asstt. Commissioner (AR) for the respondent Per: Ramesh Nair: The facts of the case is that the appellant while clearing the inputs as such under Rule 57F(3) of Central Excise Rules 1944 paid excise duty on the transaction value as against the duty payable equal to the amount of MODVAT credit availed on such inputs. Accordingly, excess duty was paid. The adju ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arned Counsel for the appellant submits that the issue involved is the payment of excess duty on removal of input as such under Rule 57F(3) of Central Excise Rules, 1944. He submits that, in the rule there is no bar for payment of excise duty in excess of what was payable. The only requirement is that the duty paid on the inputs removed as such should not be less than the MODVAT credit availed. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the amount which was paid in excess on removal of inputs as such under Rule 57F(3) of Central Excise Rules, 1944. It is necessary to ascertain whether such case is covered by provisions of Section 11A which is reproduced below: "Section 11A. Recovery of duties not levied or not paid or short-levied or short-paid or erroneously refunded- (1) Where any duty of excise has not been levied or paid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e present case the fact that duty was paid in excess is not under dispute. This is not a case where there is any short-payment or non-payment of duty. Therefore, excess paid duty cannot be again recovered under the provisions of Section 11A. We also considered the submissions that the similar issue has been decided by the Commissioner (Appeals) in favour of the appellant and no appeal was filed ag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
