TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 322X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not for payment of any duty of Excise or Service Tax. Further, the said debit was not for reversal of credit for removal of any inputs or capital goods - the appellant is entitled for re-credit of the said debit - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/70275/2017-EX[SM] - A/71284/2017-SM[BR] - Dated:- 25-10-2017 - Mr. Anil G. Shakkarwar, Member (Technical) Shri Anshul Jain (De ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... penalty. The penalty of ₹ 4,40,000/- claimed by the appellant was rejected. The reason for rejection of refund of ₹ 4,40,000/- was that the said amount was debited towards penalty through debit in RG-23 i.e. Cenvat Account through Entry No.1921 dated 31.01.2003. The contention of appellant before the Original Authority was that it was undisputed fact that appellant had debited Cenvat C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t. Aggrieved by the said order appellant is before this Tribunal. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant who has submitted that when the amount was debited for pre-deposit of penalty on 31.01.2003 Revenue did not object to the same and since the penalty does not sustain in subsequent proceedings Revenue does not have authority to retain the said amount and, therefore, refund of the said ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
