9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 91X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or recovery of Rs. 5,05,532 that was held to have been wrongly restored as credit without proper authority and imposition of penalty of Rs. 30,000 under rule 15 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 which was upheld by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai-II vide order-in-appeal no.CD/154/M-III/2014 dated 23rd December 2014, M/s Aplab Ltd seeks relief. It appears that in stock transfer to the r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd Dew-Pond Engineers (P) Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai - III [2017 (348) ELT 714 (Tri-Mum)]. 4. The former has held that "7 On the other hand, learned Counsel has relied on the decisions of Sopariwala Exports Pvt. Ltd. (supra) wherein on the similar facts, this Tribunal had came to the conclusion that decision of Motorola India Pvt. Ltd. [2006 (206) E.L.T. 90 (Kar)] was not plac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f any." and the latter that "4. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides, I find that there is no dispute that on the same clearances, the duty was paid twice from Cenvat credit and second time from PLA on insistance of the department. Under any circumstances, the double payment of excise duty is not required. Both the lower authorities by denying the re-credit otherwis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd claim should have been filed, when the appellant have made request in writing for re-credit in the Cenvat account, the same can be disposed of considering the refund claim of the appellant but instead of disposing request of re-credit both the lower authority has passed orders for recovery of the re-credit amount which is not legal and proper. All the judgments cited by the ld. Counsel directly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
