9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 414X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - A/89335/17/SMB - Dated:- 6-9-2017 - Mr. Raju, Member (Technical) Shri.L Maithili, Advocate for appellant Shri.Sanjay Hasija, Supdt. (AR) for respondent ORDER Per : Raju 1. This appeal has been filed by 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 Credit. Consequently, the appellant paid the entire amount of duty through PLA along with interest. However, the sam ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... om the above, we have also looked into the merits of the order of the CESTAT. By the impugned order the CESTAT upheld the order of Commissioner of Central Excise dropping the show cause notice demanding an amount of ₹ 6.83 crores from the respondent-assessee being the amount of suo motu credit of Additional Excise Duty (AED) after having paid the same to the Revenue as the credit on AED could not be utilised for payment 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the appellant has relied upon the decision of the Larger Bench of the CESTAT in BDH Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai, 2008 (229) E.L.T. 364. The said decision has already been considered by CESTAT in the impugned order and it has been distinguished as inapplicable. The CESTAT held that the ratio of the said case relates to excise duty paid and the procedure to be followed for getting back such excess duty paid and has no application in this case as there is no issue of refund but only restoring the AED credits taken prior to 1 April, 2000. 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
