9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (12) TMI 368X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aised invoice No. 18 dated 30.03.08 for which they had paid service tax amounting to Rs. 3,02,944/- vide RG 23 Pt-II E.No.660 dated 30.03.2008. Thus they had paid total service tax amounting to Rs. 3,19,012/- in RG.23 Pt-II. Further, the said appellant also paid service tax amounting to Rs. 3,02,944/- against bill No. 18 dated 30.03.2008 vide challan No. 12 dated 05.05.08 and service tax amount of Rs. 16,058/- against bill No 17 dated 30.03.08 vide challan No. 0193 dated 03.10.2008, thus resulted into double payment of sendee tax amount of Rs. 3,19,012/-. Thereafter the appellant took the credit of Rs.3,19,012/- in their Cenvat credit account vide RG 23 Part-II E.No.1109 and 1110 dated 17.03.09. On being advised by the Range Superintendent, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is view has been upheld by the Tribunal in the decisions in the case of S. Subrahmanyan &, Co. v. CCE 2011 (268) ELT 497 (Tri. - Ahmd.), ESDEE Paints Ltd. v. CCE 2010 (249) ELT 225 (Tri. - Ahmd.). Further, he also relies upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Raj Petro Specialities (P.) Ltd. v. CCE [Final Order No. A/917/2009-WZB/Ahd. dated 21-5-2009] where also the reversal of credit entry was made at the instance of the Revenue and thereafter refund claim filed was rejected on the ground of limitation. 4. Learned SDR Submits that the refund claim filed by the appellant is for the service tax paid on 30.03.08. The subsequent reversal of debit entry and reversal of credit entry are not relevant to the issue and therefore the date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... k the view that appellants cannot be penalized for action taken by them at the instance of Revenue Authorities which itself was not in accordance with law. In this case also appellants took suo motu credit on 17.03.09. On being advised by the Range Superintendent, the entries were reversed on 22.05.09. It has to be noted if the Range Superintendent were to advise the appellant to file a refund claim immediately after reversing the entry, the refund claims would not have been time barred at all. While advising reversal, the remedy available to the appellant by way of filing refund claim could have been intimated in the case of immediately after coming to know that the re-credit was wrong, appellants could have filed a refund claim. However, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
