9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 887X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case is that the respondent deposited an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- in the Unit No.1 account through e-payment for Central Excise duty vide GAR-7 challan No. 00361 dated 30.07.2011 instead of e-payment for Central Excise duty of Unit No.2. During the month of July 2011 the total duty liability of Unit No.1 was Rs. 5,78,103/- which was paid through their CENVAT credit account on due date and after ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o by setting aside the order-in-original allowed the appeal of the respondent. Therefore, the Revenue is before me. 2. Shri S.V. Nair, learned Asst. Commissioner (A.R.) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterating the grounds of appeal submits that the respondent has deposited this amount through GAR 7 challan but the same amount was not taken as credit in PLA and the same was not debited towar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h otherwise not payable by the respondent. An amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- deposited through GAR-7 challan is only towards the duty and not for anything else and cannot be said that the amount paid through GAR-7 is not towards excise duty but for something else. It is settled position that any amount which is refundable the only provision applicable is Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. Therefore ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y mistake since the same is not covered under Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944. 9. The findings of the lower authority are totally untenable. I find that the contention of the appellant is that it was due to mistake the amounts were deposited in Unit No.1 instead of Unit No.II and the adjudicating authority found that the appellant has deposited Rs. 10,00,000/- in unit No.1 towards liabili ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
