9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (5) TMI 213X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd paid was over and above the amount of Rs. 4,41,561/- which was originally claimed and rejected vide order-in-original No. 76/97, dated 17-12-1997. Therefore, a show cause notice dated 17-8-1999 was issued to the appellants for recovery of the amount erroneously sanctioned which culminated in the order of the original No. 54/99, dated 17-11-1999 by which the original authority ordered recovery of Rs. 3,47,312/- Aggrieved by the said order, the party filed stay application and appeal before the lower appellate authority, who by Order-in-Appeal No. 67/2000 (M-I), dated 26-5-2000 rejected the appeal for non-compliance of the stay order passed by him wherein he had directed the party to pre-deposit a sum of Rs. 3,47,312/-, in terms of Sectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeared for the appellants and submitted that the appellants were directed by the department to pay an amount equivalent to the credit taken on the inputs lying in stock and also on the inputs contained in finished goods which were lying in stock at the time of opting out of the Modvat scheme at the beginning of the financial year while availing SSI exemption. Accordingly the appellants paid a sum of Rs. 7,88,873/- under protest. He has further submitted that the amount of refund of Rs. 7,88,873/- granted as refund is the amount paid under protest. He has further submitted that appellants by mistake instead of claiming Rs. 7,88,872.71 (Rs. 7,88,873/-) had claimed only Rs. 4,41,561/- and the amount of Rs. 3,47,312/- involved in the present ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ejected and on appeal, the order of rejection was set aside. The appellants instead of filing the refund claim for Rs. 4,41,561/- enhanced the amount on their own. On this ground also, their appeal cannot be entertained because the enhanced amount was not part of the original order. She has also referred to the comments dated 27-2-2002 received from the Commissionerate, a copy of which is placed in the file, which states that even though the TR 6 challans do bear the endorsement of payment of duty under protest, none of the challans spelt out as to which removals, the payment under protest pertain. Mere deposit of amount towards their PLA under protest cannot be equated with individual removals, argued the learned SDR. In the circumstances, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n stock as such. Again while opting in, they took the credit under Rule 57H and utilised the same. Therefore, they have already utilised the credit towards the duty liability of the final products cleared by them. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the appellants are not entitled to any amount in excess of what was originally claimed by them as that would amount to granting double benefit. The plea of the appellants that they have originally claimed a lesser amount by mistake cannot be countenanced, as they themselves had calculated the amount of refund to the tune of Rs. 4,41,561/- in terms of the detailed worksheet furnished by them, as noted by the lower appellate authority in the order-in-appeal No. 67/2000 (M-I), dated 26-5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
