9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 414X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... M/s.Panel Board & Laminates Ltd. against denial of credit utilized by them, after payment of same amount of disputed duty through PLA along with interest. 2. Ld. Counsel for the appellant pointed out that the appellant due to financial difficulties could not pay the duty in time and therefore, action under Rule 8 (3A) was initiated. The appellants were denied the benefit of utilization of Cenvat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ariwala Exports Pvt. Ltd. - 2017 (49) STR 195 (Tri-Ahmd) 3. Ld. AR reiterates the findings of the impugned order. 4. I have gone through the rival submissions. I find that the Revenue has relied on the decision of Larger Bench in the case of BDH Industries Ltd. - 2008 (229) ELT 364 (Tri-LB) wherein it has been held that the assesee cannot take suo moto credit on duty wrongly paid by him. The Com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment of Basic duty of Excise but only be utilised for payment of AED. This was done by retrospective amendment in 2004. Therefore, the AED credit utilised was paid into the revenue through PLA and the original AED credit for payment of Basic Excise Duty was suo motu taken by the respondent and upheld by the Commissioner of Central Excise. The CESTAT in the impugned order holds as follows :- "The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rectly ordered so by the Commissioner. We find considerable merit in the finding of the Commissioner that but for the statutory changes introduced with effect from 1-3-2003 following which the assessee had discharged the duty liability on tyres using AED (GSI), it would have continued to have the impugned credit in its account. We also find that the Commissioner correctly held that the respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The learned counsel for the Revenue is unable to point out why the distinction made by CESTAT in the impugned order is incorrect. 5. I find that in the instant case the facts are similar to the case of CEAT Ltd. The said decision has been passed after considering the decision of the Larger Bench in the case of BDH Industries Ltd. and accordingly relying on the said decision, I set aside the imp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
