2016 (2) TMI 933

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... as, (Judicial Member) Heard both sides an perused the records. 2. The appellant filed this appeal against rejection of refund clam of Rs. 1,57,879/-. During the period from 6.12.2007 to 15.12.2007 and 5.8.2008 to 8.8.2008, the appellant defaulted to discharge the monthly payment of duty under Rule 8(3) of the Central Excise Rules 2002. The appellant paid amount from the Cenvat account during the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... payable by the appellant has been paid. The excess duty paid was not required to be paid by the appellant. Therefore the same cannot be treated as duty. As held by this Tribunal in the case of Shankar Ramchandra Auctioneers - 2010 (19) S.T.R. 222 (Tri.-Mum.) wherein it was held that the excess amount paid erroneously as duty which was not required to pay, there is no bar to return of such amounts .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rom Cenvat account. Despite the appellant paid the amount in March 2009 in cash as pre-deposit is liable to be refunded. It is a clear case of refund of double payment of duty should not be rejected. 5. In view of the above discussion, the impugned order is set aside. The appeal filed by the appellant is allowed. (Dictated and pronounced in the Court)
Case laws, Decisions, Judgements, Orders .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X