9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 1091X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r (Technical) Shri Surjit Bhadu, Shri Veer Singh, Advocates for the Appellant(s) Shri Tarun Kumar, A.R. for the Respondent(s) Per: Ashok Jindal The appellant is in appeal against the impugned orders wherein their claim for refund of education/ higher education cess has been denied and it was also held that, as the appellant paid excess duty which was not payable by them, they are not entitled ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 10% value of the goods, under Rule 8 of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000. Therefore, proceedings were initiated against the appellants for denial of refund filed by them. Matters were adjudicated, refund claims were rejected. Against those order, the appellants is before us. 3. Heard both sides and perused the record. 4. We find that the issue of refund of education cess/ higher education ce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and that is a deposit made by the appellant. For a deposit made by the appellant, the provisions of Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944 are not applicable to the facts of this case. The provisions of Section 11A are applicable only in the case duty short paid, not paid or erroneously refunded. As per the Revenue itself, the excess amount paid by the appellant is not towards duty, in that circ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
