TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 284X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itself deprived of the authority of law, the appeal before the Tribunal is infructuous - the entire proceedings from the beginning are not maintainable in law and that the appellant is at liberty to adjust the CENVAT credit to the extent permitted by the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 - appeal allowed - decided partly in favor of appellant. - E/510/2012 - A/88019/17/SMB - Dated:- 13-6-2017 - Shri C J Mathew, Member (Technical) None for the appellant Shri Sanjay Hasija, Superintendent (AR) for the respondent ORDER M/s Siemens Ltd is in appeal against the rejection, and the sustaining thereof vide order-in-appeal no. BC/236/BEL/2011-12 dated 6th January 2012 of Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai III, of its clai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... would appear that the authorities, piqued by this unilateral move on the part of the assessee, issued a show cause notice for recovery of the said amount and for penal action. 3. The adjudicating authority, vide order dated 15th May 2009, placed reliance on the decision of the Tribunal in Century Rayon v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-II [2004 (170) ELT 476 (T) to deny the unilateral restoration of credit which could have been obtained only by recourse to section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 and, in addition to ordering recovery of the reversed amount, imposed penalty of ₹ 5,000 on the appellant. Consequent upon discharge of this confirmed amount by debit in CENVAT Credit account on 30th June 2009, the refund claim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een reversed consequent upon an adjudication order. The Tribunal in Commissioner of Central Excise v. Raymond Ltd - [2006 (201) ELT 454 (Tri-Mumbai)] considered the decision relied upon supra but, in view of the decision in Visakhapatnam Steel Plant v. Commissioner - [2002 (149) ELT 708 (Tribunal)] , held I find that there are two Division Bench decision in the case of Visakhapatnam Steel Plant and Wipro Ltd (cited supra) which hold that such restoration of credit does not require a refund application under Section 11B and they are just correction of entries in the account and in view of the same these decisions will prevail over the decision in the case of Century Rayon cited by the learned JDR which was a single member decisio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
