TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 543X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in favor of appellant. - E/21430/2017-SM - Final Order No. 20540 /2018 - Dated:- 10-4-2018 - Shri S. S. Garg, Judicial Member Mr. B. G. Chidananda Urs, Advocate For the Appellant Mr. N. Jagadish, AR For the Respondent ORDER Per : S. S. Garg The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 4.7.2017 passed by the Commissioner (A) whereby the Commissioner (A) has rejected the appeal of the appellant and upheld the Order-in-Original. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of readymade garments (RMG). The levy of excise duty on the RMG was exempted as per the Notification No.11/2013-CE dated 28.2.2013. However, it was taxable prior to 28.2.2013. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rmitted to pay the tax and also get interest for such delayed/non-payment. He further submitted that the amount so paid by the service receiver on issue of supplementary invoice would have the effect of excess debit to PLA and therefore, the excess payment of duty under PLA of an amount of ₹ 8,23,262/- should be granted as refund by the department on principles of equity. He further submitted that both the authorities have wrongly rejected the refund on the ground that the appellant had NIL balance in their PLA as on 28.2.2013 and it was also held that such rewriting of their PLA is not permissible. The learned counsel also submitted that the rent paid during the period from 1.3.2011 to 28.2.2013 includes the service tax also. He al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appellant have paid the service tax on the supplementary invoice dated 31.12.2013 by the landlord and thereafter, recasted the PLA and filed the refund claim on the ground that they are entitled to get the refund as the appellant is not liable to pay the excise duty in view of the Notification No.11/2013-CE dated 28.2.2013. Further, it is pertinent to note the relevant finding recorded by the Commissioner (A) in para 6 7, which is reproduced herein below: 6. I find that it is undisputed that in their statutory ER1 Return ending February 2013, they have shown Nil‟ balance in their PLA account. The PLA account i.e., Personal Ledger Account is meant to enter the cash payments which an assessee makes to the Government Account f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is also undisputed that their closing balance of PLA Account as on 28.2.2013 was ‟NIL‟ as per the Statutory Return filed by the appellant. Thus, the submission that their PLA balance was ₹ 8,28,262/- is untenable. On this ground also, the claim is liable to be rejected. 6.1 Further, I find that the Commissioner (A) has also observed in para 8 that the claim has been filed on 25.9.2014 which appears to be time barred under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. In this regard, I find that in the show-cause notice there is no allegation regarding the time bar raised by the appellant. Therefore this finding of the Commissioner (A) is beyond the show-cause notice and is not tenable under law. Further, I find that the lear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
