9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 91X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... KM D Souza, Assistant Commissioner (AR) - for the Respondent ORDER Aggrieved by the demand for recovery of ₹ 5,05,532 that was held to have been wrongly restored as credit without proper authority and imposition of penalty of ₹ 30,000 under rule 15 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 which was upheld by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai-II vide order-in-appeal no.CD/154/M-III/2014 dated 23rd December 2014, M/s Aplab Ltd seeks relief. It appears that in stock transfer to the regional office, the appellant had, in September 2007 paid in excess amount of ₹ 5,05,532 through their account current and, on being made aware, availed credit of this amount in the CENVAT account in December 2007. According to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ased upon the decision of Honble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Motorola India Pvt. Ltd., therefore, I hold that the appellant has correctly taken suo moto credit of the duty paid twice. In these circumstances, impugned order is set aside. Appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any. and the latter that 4. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides, I find that there is no dispute that on the same clearances, the duty was paid twice from Cenvat credit and second time from PLA on insistance of the department. Under any circumstances, the double payment of excise duty is not required. Both the lower authorities by denying the re-credit otherwise held that both the amount is recoverable for wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed on is only one time duty paid on the clearances, therefore the unjust enrichment does not apply. Moreover, the amount paid from Cenvat account has not been considered by the department as excise duty that is a reason they asked to pay in cash, which was complied by the appellant. For this reason also issue of unjust enrichment does not arise. As per my above discussion, I am of the considered view that the appellant has correctly re-credited the Cenvat amount, therefore the impugned order is set aside. The appeal is allowed. 5. In view of the above decisions of the Tribunal, the proceedings against the appellant does not sustain. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. (Pronounced in Court) - - TaxTMI - TMITax - Central Excise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
