2005 (9) TMI 152

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... gainst order-in-appeal number 181/2003 (B. III), dated 12-11-2003 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Bangalore. 2. The facts of the case are as follows :- The appellants, by mistake, debited an amount of Rs. 1,58,099/- in excess in their PLA/CENVAT account for the month of March 2001. Hence, they approached the department for permission to credit the amount paid by mistake. The department a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t the fact of excess debit, instead of following them to rectify the error thereby utilizing the amount for subsequent payments, they misguided them to file the refund claim. 3. The department maintains that the excess amount paid by the appellant is not in accordance with Rule 173G. In that case, it should not be considered as duty. Therefore, provisions of Section 11B are not attracted .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... fund claim is required, the first letter informing the department of the mistake and requesting for permission to rectify the same should be taken as claim for the purpose of Section 11B. Alternatively, the contention of the appellant that the amount paid by mistake is not duty merits consideration. In fact, duty paid on the goods is indicated in the invoices. The amount erroneously paid in excess .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X