9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 270X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he license No.1510019864 dt. 26/08/2013 which was left over while considering the amount of duty paid. Further, it is found that the whole situation has arisen due to the fact that licence was debited but the same was not reflecting in the system and as a result the appellant had to pay in cash. Subsequently, mistake was detected but the authorities did not correct the same on their own but the appellant was compelled to seek refund - It is a settled law that the Department cannot take advantage of its own wrong. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - C/21175/2018-SM - Final Order No. 20364/2019 - Dated:- 25-4-2019 - MR. S.S GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER Ms. Neetu James, Advocate For the Appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without properly appreciating the facts and the law and the binding judicial precedent. She further submitted that the excess payment of duty has been made in cash as the debit in the FPS licence was not reflected in the system due to technical error. She further submitted that since the excess payment of duty made in cash, the appellant is entitled to the refund thereof in cash. She also submitted that if the refund in cash can be granted only for the cash deposited, then the Department should treat the refund out of ₹ 12,28,004/- which was deposited in cash by the appellant. She further submitted that the Circular No.6/2008 dt. 28/04/2008 which was relied upon by the Commission ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de excess payment of duty in cash when the appellant was asked to deposit an amount of ₹ 12,28,004/- which was deposited by the appellant in cash. Further I find that the observation of the Commissioner(Appeals) in the impugned order that the appellant has claimed the refund by way of recredit in the licence is factually incorrect because in the application for refund, which is on record, it is nowhere mentioned that the appellant has claimed the refund by way of credit whereas the fact of the matter is that the appellant has filed the application seeking refund of the excess duty paid by them by debit in the license No.1510019864 dt. 26/08/2013 which was left over while considering the amount of duty paid. Further I find that the Cir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
