9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 347X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant though charging excise duty in the sales invoices but did not deposit the excise duty so charged in the government department for the period from October 2002 to October 2007. After completion of the investigation a notice was issued. Show cause notice dt. 11.1.2008 was issued invoking the extended period wherein the demand of excise duty amounting to Rs. 35,43,036/- was proposed under Section 11A(1) of Central Excise Act, 1944, apart from demand. It was also proposed to recover the amount of Rs. 31,80,036/- in cash which was debited by the appellant in their cenvat account. The adjudicating authority confirmed charges of non-payment of excise duty and confirmed the demand of Rs. 35,43,036/- and appropriated amount of Rs. 3,63 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. He submits that the duty demand is not in dispute as the appellant has categorically admitted the duty demand and also paid along with interest. He submits that the cenvat credit cannot be allowed as the appellant have not periodical filed returns. He submits that the adjudicating authority in relation to Cenvat credit given the finding that since the claim of cenvat credit could not be established by the appellant, they may file separate refund claim with the appropriate authority in respect of cenvat credit. Therefore the payment made through cenvat credit cannot be considered as payment of duty against the demand confirmed. He placed reliance on the following judgment (i) K. Madh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... voices etc. In such a situation, the adjudicating authority after verifying the documents should have allowed the cenvat credit which could have been adjusted against the duty demand of the relevant period. There was no reason for adjudicating authority to direct the appellant for filing a separate refund claim after making entire payment from cash. I am therefore of the considered view, that the claim of the appellant regarding payment of duty from the cenvat account appears to be correct and legal. However, the adjustment of cenvat credit against demand of duty is subject to the verification of the document such as purchase invoices and accounting of the same in their books of account such as Ledger, Balance Sheet etc. if it is establishe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
