TMI Blog2006 (8) TMI 382X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the Respondent. [Order]. This appeal is filed by the Revenue against Order-in-Appeal dated 17-5-2004 which set aside the Order-in-Original directing the respondents to file refund claim regarding excess duty paid by them. 2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are that the respondent are manufacturer of man-made fabrics and woolen fabrics. During the period April, 2001 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ime granted the adjustment of excess paid amount to the short paid amount instead of resorting to refund claim. Hence, this appeal by the Revenue. 3. It is the contention of the learned D.R. that the adjustment of excess paid duty should not have been granted by the Commissioner (Appeals), instead of that the Commissioner (Appeals) should have directed the respondent to file refund claim as held ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e made and if there is any excess payment of duty is made it is to be refunded to the respondent. In this case there is a short payment of Rs. 5.15 lakhs and an excess payment of Rs. 34,000/-. Since in this case the excess payment by the respondent is less than the short payment the adjudicating authority could have adjusted the whole amount against the amount short paid by the respondent. 6. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... coverable from them against the excess payment made by the appellants erroneously, particularly since there was no dispute that the appellants had paid excess duty and the assessments for that period were provisional. A plain reading of the above indicates that the Commissioner (Appeals) has correctly culled out the intention of the law in the case of provisional assessment. 7. Accordingly, I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
