TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 736X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... made to go through the rigmarole of filing an application for refund of the amount debited by them in CENVAT account. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/2869/2011-SM - Final Order No. 21222 / 2017 - Dated:- 25-7-2017 - Shri M. V. Ravindran, Judicial Member Shri N. Anand, Advocate For the Appellant Shri Naveen Kushalappa, Dy. Commissioner (AR) For the Respondent ORDER Per : M. V. Ravindran This appeal is directed against of Order-in-Appeal No. 201-2011 dated 18/07/2011. 2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are that the appellant herein is a manufacturer of excisable goods and discharges appropriate excise duty and also avails benefit of CENVAT Credit Rules. They are also regist ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e credit by the appellant for the amount of ₹ 15,45,422/- is incorrect and not in accordance with law. 4. Heard both sides and perused records. 5. Learned counsel submits that identical / similar issue came up before the Tribunal in the case of Sopariwala Exports Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Vadodara-I [2017 (49) STR 195 (Tri. Ahmd.)] and CCE, Surat-II Vs. Vardhman Acrylics Ltd. [2013(292) ELT 558 (Tri. Ahmd.)] wherein the Tribunal went into the entire provisions of the CCR and also decided case laws on the point and allowed the credit wherein the duty liability has been discharged through PLA. He produced the copies of the said judgment. 6. Learned AR on the other hand submits that it was for the appellant to follow the procedures lai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rger Bench was made by me in the case of BDH Industries Limited, sitting singly, only on the ground that the appellant had taken suo motu credit of excess paid duty by double debit in PLA and the and credit was taken in RG 23A Part-II; noticing contrary decisions of Tribunal in the case of Motorola India Pvt. Limited and Comfit Sanitary Napkins (I) Pvt. Limited. I find that the law as has been decided by the Larger Bench seems to be incorrect on the face of the fact that the judgment of the Tribunal in Motorola India Pvt. Limited was carried in appeal before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and their Lordships have upheld the said order. It is seen from the case of BDH Industries Limited that the said judgment of the Hon'ble High ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nial of the refund claim for the excess amount paid on account of clerical error is unjust. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we allow the appeal with consequential relief. 11. Aggrieved by such an order of the Division Bench of the Tribunal, Revenue preferred appeal before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, wherein their Lordships have passed the following order:- [Judgment]. - Revenue is before us aggrieved by the order dated 1-9-2005 passed in appeal No. E/83/2004 by the Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore. 2. The respondent-assessee by mistake debited an amount of ₹ 1,58,099/- in excess of the duty payable in their PLA/CENVAT account for the month of March 2001. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... interference by us. No question of law arises. The order is based on the law laid down by the Apex Court. 12. It can be seen from the above reproduced portion of the Tribunal's order as well as the Hon'ble High Court's order, that the facts of the case in Motorola India Pvt. Limited is identical to the facts as is in the case before me. In my view, as no contrary judgment of any other High Court to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Motorola India Pvt. Limited is brought to my notice, I find that the judgment of Motorola India Pvt. Limited will hold the field and the Larger Bench decision in the case of BDH Industries being a decision of the Tribunal, shall have no binding effect. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
