9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 84X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y, when it is noticed that the assessee is not required to discharge the same - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - E/3615/2012-SM - Final Order No. 22319/2017 - Dated:- 26-9-2017 - Shri M.V. Ravindran, Judicial Member Shri K Naveen, AR - For the Appellant None - For the Respondent ORDER Per : M.V.Ravindran This appeal is filed by the revenue against Order- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... irregular availment of Cenvat credit demanding an amount of ₹ 5,75,782 during the period June 2007 to Jan 2008 which was, after due process of law, confirmed with interest and penalties were imposed. The adjudicating authority after in the order in original while confirming the demands appropriated the same against ₹ 25,00,000/-, debited by the respondent during the investigation pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ith the argument of appellant and find pronouncement of original authority bereft of merit. The appellant has deposited the amount [i.e. reversed the credit] during the investigation process; and such deposit is not hit by limitation as it is always deemed to be made over protest and there are plethora of decisions of Tribunals on this grounds, to quote some: i) Maihar cement Vs. Commissioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gs as the amount has not been paid under protest, the question of limitation has been correctly invoked by the adjudicating authority and needs to be upheld; that the first appellate authority as erred in holding that the respondent is eligible for refund of ₹ 19,24,219/- without adjusting the amount of penalties which has been imposed on the appellant on the confirmation of demand of ₹ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
