2015 (2) TMI 381

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... under Notification No. 56/2002-CE, as the excess quantum of refund under Notification No. 56/2002-CE during February 2006 to April 2006, was neutralized by lesser quantum of refund under this notification during December 2006. - Assessee did not take the available Cenvat credit during the period it was available and paid the excess from the PLA and took the refund thereof. Later on, they took Cenvat credit which was available and paid less duty. In that case, the excess refund availed by the assessee during the initial period was sought to be denied. In that case, this Tribunal held that it is situation of revenue neutrality, therefore denial of refund is not sustainable. Fact of non-availment of Cenvat credit was in the month of Decembe .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... dition to Additional Custom Duty, Special Additional Custom Duty (SAD) under Section 3 (5) of the Indian Customs Tariff Act, had also been paid. However, the appellant, during the period from February 2006 to March 2006 had confined to Cenvat credit availment only to Additional Customs Duty and had not taken the Cenvat credit of ₹ 10,72,419/- available in respect of Special Additional Customs Duty (SAD). To the extent the lesser Cenvat credit was availed there was lesser payment of duty through Cenvat credit and higher payment of duty through PLA resulting in higher refund under Notification No. 56/2002-CE. When this was pointed out by the Department in December 2006, the appellant immediately took the Cenvat credit of ₹ 10,72,4 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... as no excess refund and hence there is no question of recovery, that in any case there is not even intention to claim higher refund and hence proviso to Section 11A (1) is not applicable, that the demand raised vide show cause notice dated 06/1/11 is totally time barred, therefore impugned order be set aside and the appeal be allowed. 4. Shri A. K. Dhawan, the learned DR, opposed the contentions of the learned Counsel by reiterating the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order. He pleaded that there was suppression of fact and hence extended period has been correctly invoked. 5. I have considered the submissions from both the sides and perused the records. 6. In this case, though during February 2006 to April 20 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X