9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 1115X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd and there is no need of production of any documents to substantiate the same when it is clearly admitted in the Order-in-Original that there was excess payment - refund allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/21109/2017 - FINAL Order No. 20566/2018 - Dated:- 12-4-2018 - Shri S.S. Garg, Judicial Member Mr. Raghavendra B. Hanjer, Advocate - For the Appellant Mrs. Kavitha Podwal, AR - For the Respondent ORDER Per : S.S. Garg The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 24.4.2017 passed by the Commissioner (A) whereby the Commissioner (A) has rejected the appeal of the appellant and upheld the Order-in-Original. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t filed application seeking refund of ₹ 8,34,639/- of the duty paid initially at the time of transfer of assets on the ground that the said amount has been paid twice; firstly, at the time of transfer of assets and subsequently, when CENVAT credit was denied through OIO No.77/2015 dated 10.7.2015. Thereafter, a show-cause notice dated 14.4.2015 was issued proposing to reject the refund on the allegation that no documentary evidences corroborating excess reversal/payment made by the appellant. Thereafter, vide order dated 1.8.2016, Deputy Commissioner rejected the refund claim on the ground that the appellant failed to produce any documentary evidence to show the excess payment of credit. Aggrieved by the said order, appellant filed th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appellant paid the duty and thereafter, Unit-2 availed the CENVAT credit of the same. The allegation of the department is that the appellant is not entitled to the CENVAT credit of ₹ 8,34,639/- and vide Order-in-Original dated 10.7.2015, it was held by the Additional Commissioner that the appellant has wrongly availed the CENVAT credit of this amount which is liable to be reversed. Thereafter, the appellant has also paid the said amount vide TR-6 challan and filed the refund claim which was rejected only on the ground that the appellant has not been able to establish that he has paid the said amount twice. Further, I find that in the OIO dated 10.7.2015, it is clear that there was an excess payment of duty by Unit-2 at the time of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
