9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 424X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... limitation - Held that: - no verification was sought by the authorities below for payment made by the appellant on 13-3-2000 and 27-3-2000 to find out whether the appellant has paid the differential duty during the said period or not. In that circumstances, it would be in the interest of justice to set aside impugned order and to remand the matter back to the adjudicating authority to decide the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y liability for the month of March, 2000 was ₹ 8,00,000/- instead of ₹ 6,00,000/- which was already determined. The department detected the short payment of duty in July, 2002 for the month of March, 2000 and it was pointed out to the appellant. On pointing out, the appellant paid differential duty. Later on, in the month of October, 2010 a show cause notice was issued to the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cumstances, the appellant is entitled to claim refund of the excess duty paid by them. In that circumstances, the demand of interest and imposition of penalty are to be set aside and claim of refund of the appellant be considered. 4. On the other hand, the ld. AR reiterated the finding of the impugned order. 5. Heard the parties and considered the submissions. 6. The appellant has rais ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ity to decide the issue of limitation as well as to find out the factual position about the payment of differential duty in the March, 2000 itself vide challans dated 13-3-2000 and 27-3-2000. Therefore, after setting aside the impugned order, the matter is remanded back to the adjudicating authority to decide the issue as discussed hereinabove and to pass appropriate order in accordance with law. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
