9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (2) TMI 776X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... January 2004, on the basis of certain objections about wrong Cenvat credit availed by the appellant and non-payment of duty on certain scrap, the appellant on 18/3/04 debited an amount of Rs. 1,98,469/- in their RG-23C Pt. II account. Subsequently, the appellant on 28/2/05 recredited this amount as they were of the view that the same had been wrongly debited. Subsequently when it was discovered, the department issued a show cause notice dated 21/7/06 for recovery of the wrongly recredited amount of Rs. 1,98,469/- alongwith interest and also for imposition of penalty on them under Rule 15 of the Cenvat Credit Rules. The show cause notice was issued on the basis that once the certain amount had been debited on the basis of audit objection, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t in view of this, the department was aware of the recredit entry and as such there is no suppression on the part of the appellant. He, therefore, pleaded that the demand is time barred and as such the Commissioner (Appeals) s order upholding the confirmation of Cenvat credit demand is not correct. 2.2 Mrs. Rimjhim Prasad, the learned Departmental Representative, pleaded that if the appellant felt that they are eligible for the recredit of the amount which had been wrongly debited by them in the RG-23C Pt. II account, they should have filed a refund claim, that suo moto credit of excess or twice paid duty is not permissible, that Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of BDH Industries Ltd. vs. CCE (Appeals), Mumbai I reported in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve re-credited the amount in their RG-23C Pt. II register. On going through the show cause notice, I find that para 3 of the show cause notice mentions that the appellant paid the duty on 18/3/04 by debit entry in RG-23C Pt. II account, but later on the amount of Rs. 1,98,469/- was re-credited by them vide entry No. 48 dated 28/2/05 on the plea that the issue on the basis of which the objection has been raised by the audit, has been decided in their favour in the case of Fazilka Co.Op. Sugar Ltd. From this, it appears that the Department was aware of the letter dated 5/3/05 of the appellant, mentioning the recredit on 28/2/05. Moreover, I find that in the show cause notice, there is no allegation at all that the appellant had suppressed the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
