9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (4) TMI 339X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... HELD THAT:- The excess amount deposited by the appellant is not in the nature of excise duty, but revenue deposit. Further, the law in this case is settled that in case of revenue deposit the limitation prescribed under Section 11B is not applicable - adjudicating authority is directed to grant refund in cash in terms of Section 142(5) of CGST Act, 2017 - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entry No. 1013 dated 30.11.2015. 2. Further, on the basis of the invoice issued by the appellant dated 30.11.2015 M/s MCW Health Care (P) Limited took credit in their RG-23 Part-II register vide Entry No. 804 dated 01.12.2015. The appellant subsequently on realising the mistake informed M/s MCW Health Care (P) Limited by their letter dated 14.04.2016 regarding the excess amount of duty charged ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xed to the appeal paper book. Thereafter, the appellant approached the department by letter dated 20.05.2017 for permission to take credit of the said amount of ₹ 93,750/-. The Assistant Commissioner vide order-in-original dated 31.07.2018 rejected the refund claim (request of credit on the ground of limitation). Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred appeal before the Commissioner (Appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssued by the Range Superintendent to the buyer, there is no case of unjust enrichment against the appellant. 5. Learned Authorised Representative appearing for the Revenue relied on the impugned order. 6. Having heard the Authorised Representative and on perusal of record, grounds of appeal and statement of facts, I hold that the excess amount deposited by the appellant is not in the nature ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
