9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (7) TMI 611X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been considered - The impugned order has simply observed that the appellant has failed to prove the payment of excess duty without considering the plethora of documentary evidences on record, the CA Certificate produced on record have been totally ignored without any reason. The documents produced in the Appeal Paper book and few sample invoices shows the payment of excess duty but the same have not been considered and verified by the authorities below - this case needs to be remanded to the original authority with a direction to pass a fresh order after examining the various documents placed on record or which may be submitted by the appellant in support of their claim and thereafter pass a reasoned order in accordance with law. App ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d and confirmed that they have not taken CENVAT credit of excess Excise duty of ₹ 18,08,271/-. As the appellant has remitted excess amount of excise duty to the Account of Government hence a claim of refund was filed by the appellant. Thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner issued SCN dated 23.04.2018 proposing to deny the refund claim on various grounds. The appellant filed detailed reply to the SCN along with various documents relied upon by the appellant in support of his claim of excess Excise duty paid. The Assistant Commissioner, thereafter, passed Order-in-Original dated 27.09.2018 rejecting the refund claim of ₹ 18,08,271/-. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner who rejected the appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ice of the goods as per the Agreement. Learned Commissioner has wrongly come to the conclusion that no excess Excise duty has been paid by the appellant. The learned Commissioner has also recorded that the appellant has not produced any evidence to prove excess payment of duty. Learned Counsel further submitted that the appellant has produced on record the following documents which show that: (i) the Appellant had made excess payment of duty on account of error in adoption of higher price of ₹ 26,234/- instead of ₹ 24,052/- per MT as per the terms of the PO from the buyer; (ii) Invoice wise computation of excess duty of ₹ 18,08,271/- paid on clearances to Welspun Corp (Annexure B to the reply to SCN Page 64-72 of Mem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... paid. 5. On the other hand, learned AR reiterated the findings of the impugned order. 6. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the material on record, I find that as per the Purchase Order, the base price on which duty should have been paid was ₹ 24,052/- whereas the appellant has paid the Excise duty at 12.5% on basic price at ₹ 26,234.62/- resulting in excess payment of duty to the tune of ₹ 18,08,271/-. The appellant filed refund claim of the excess duty paid along with various documents in support of his claim but both the authorities have not examined the documents and the statements submitted by the appellant in support of their claim so much so the Chartered Accountant Certifica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
