9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (7) TMI 1237X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ner vide his order dated 07.01.2010 has already attained finality. The appeal filed by appellant against this order has already been rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals) - there are no order of this Tribunal on the confirmed dues as per the order of Additional Commissioner dated 07.01.2010. It is a matter on record that Assistant Commissioner processed the refund claim of the appellant and thereafter the entire amount which was deposited by them amounting to Rs. 7,49,664/- has been sanctioned and as per the provisions of Section 11 of Central Excise Act, 1944, the confirmed dues amounting to Rs. 5,89,662/- has been appropriated from the refund amount due to the appellant. There are no legal short-coming in the order of the Adjudicating ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of enquiry, the appellant voluntarily paid an amount of Rs. 7,49,664/- and another amount of Rs. 54,976/-. The matter got decided vide Order-in-Original No.06/VDR-II/MP/ADC/09-10 dated 07.01.2010 as follows:- (i) that the Cenvat credit has been availed correctly by the appellant as per the formula of rule 3(7)(a), upto 29.2.2008; (ii) the amendment in the formula by notification dated 05.12.2008 cannot be given retrospective effect from 01.03.2008; (iii) Excise duty is payable on the samples of medicaments taken outside the factory; (iv) Wrong credit taken is demanded invoking extended period because source of credit is not known to the department but for the investigation done; (v) Rs.1,60,002 held as wrong Cenvat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Assistant Commissioner, the appellant has appealed before Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that principles of natural justice has not been followed as they have not issued any show cause notice regarding appropriation of an amount of Rs. 1,60,002/- and adjustment of penalty of Rs. 2,11,978. 4. Against the above mentioned order dated 09.06.2010, the appellants have preferred appeals before Commissioner (Appeals) which were decided by order dated 20.09.2011 whereunder the Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appellant s appeals. The appellant is therefore before us against the above mentioned orders-in-appeal. 5. We have heard both the sides. 6. The only question needs to be answered is whether the original adjudicating autho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Central Excise Act contains the provisions for the recovery of sums due to Government. Section 11 empowers the officer to deduct the amount payable by any person from any money owing to the said person. In this matter, it has not been disputed that the demand of duty has been confirmed against the respondents under Order-in-Original dated 24-12-2001 and which has not been paid by them. In view of these facts, the Department was legally empowered to adjust the amount of refund against the pending demand. This was the view expressed by the Tribunal in the case of Pyarelal Rameshwar Prasad (supra). Accordingly, I hold that the Deputy Commissioner was justified in adjusting the amount of refund against the pending demand. Thus, the impugned or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
