9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (1) TMI 485X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e amount which has been paid twice. The Ld. Commissioner was not required to re-decide the credit eligibility in the impugned order. The Ld. Commissioner, instead of arriving at the conclusion that credit cannot be further allowed, which was never before him, ought to have appreciated the fact of payment of amount by challan as well as by credit utilization has been made by the appellant - Since the benefit of exemption has been denied and the assessee has duly made the payment by utilization of credit as also accepted by the department, the payment of amount by challan has to be at best considered as deposit which cannot be retained by the department and is liable to be refunded back. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Ld. Commissioner whereby the direction was made for recovery of amount deposited in the Escrow account by way of forfeiture for the alleged violation of the conditions of the exemption notification availed by the appellant as aforesaid. Against the said order, in the appeal filed by the assessee, the Tribunal vide Order dated 06.08.2007 remanded the matter back to the Ld. Commissioner for fresh consideration since the aforesaid orders were passed without granting opportunity of being heard in violation of principles of natural justice. (iii) Pursuant to the Tribunal s Order dated 06.08.2007, the Ld. Commissioner decided the matter in remand proceedings vide Order dated 30.01.2008, whereby he- (i) confirmed the forfeit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... March 2004 to March 2005 has already been dropped by the then Addl. Commissioner, Central Excise, Dibrugarh, vide Order no. 02/Addl. COMMR/ADJ/CE/DIB/09 dated 30.01.2009 and that there is no pending Show Cause Notice issued to the appellant assessee in relation to admissibility of Cenvat Credit. Based on above observation, the Ld. Commissioner has concluded that since proceedings for alleged wrong credit has already been dropped, the question of further allowing credit does not arise at all. The relevant portion of the order is reproduced below:- 5.5. The manufacturer argued that they have made payment twice-once by way of Cenvat Account and then again through TR-6 Challan resulting in excess payment made to the Govt. exch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s Tribunal earlier. The Ld. Commissioner was therefore, not required to re-decide the credit eligibility in the impugned order. The Ld. Commissioner, instead of arriving at the conclusion that credit cannot be further allowed, which was never before him, ought to have appreciated the fact of payment of amount by challan as well as by credit utilization has been made by the appellant. Since the benefit of exemption has been denied and the assessee has duly made the payment by utilization of credit as also accepted by the department, the payment of amount by challan has to be at best considered as deposit which cannot be retained by the department and is liable to be refunded back which we direct to do so. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
