2018 (5) TMI 307

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... R COURT : 1. The appellant assails the order of the CESTAT, the order of Commissioner of Appeals and the order in original. 2. Mrs. Deshmukh, learned advocate for the appellant submits that the authorities have erroneously come to the conclusion that the appellant has not reversed the entry of Rs. 8,26,649 twice. In fact the duty is paid by the appellant twice. Only because in the books of accou .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ond time Rs. 8,26,649/. The amount was required to be paid by the appellant twice upon the insistence of the department. The learned advocate submits that all these authorities have ignored the documents referred to above. 3. Mr. Ladda, learned advocate submits that it is the case of review. For the first time loss has been occasioned to petitioner. It is not a case of payment of duty twice. Eve .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... uperintendent confirmed the second reversal, the Range Superintendent has not confirmed when it was reversed first time and the Commissioner (Appeals) in his order has clearly observed that no document conclusively prove that the appellant has reversed the CENVAT credit twice. Without any documentary evidence the appellant is not entitled for the refund claim. This amount is open in financial rec .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X