9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 2121X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... For the Respondent : Shri Tarun Kumar, AR ORDER PER AHSOK JINDAL The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order wherein the demand has been confirmed on account of erroneous refund given to the appellant. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant is located in the State of Jammu & Kashmir and availing the benefit of exemption Notification No. 56/02-CE dt. 14.11.2002 and manufact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... judicated, the demand on account of excess refund sanctioned to the appellant was confirmed. Against the said order, the appellant is before us. 3. Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that admittedly the order sanctioning refund has not been challenged by the Revenue. Therefore, the show cause notice for recovery of excess refund cannot be issued to the appellant in the light of the decision of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e find that in terms of Notification No. 56/2002-C.E., dated 14-11-2002, the assessee is required to pay duty after adjusting the Cenvat credit in cash and whatever duty paid in cash is entitled to self-credit/refund to the assessee. The case of the Revenue is that as they have not availed the Cenvat credit and they have paid excess duty against actual duty payable by them. Therefore, the excess c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e case of the Revenue itself that they were not required to pay duty, therefore, the excess amount paid by the appellant is merely a deposit not a duty. Hence, the provisions of Section 11A of the Act, is not applicable to the case. In that circumstances, the appellant is not required to pay the excess refund claimed by them." 8. We further take note of the fact that admittedly the order of sanct ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
