TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 821X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ade out by the revenue that appellant had not debited amount in PLA and hence not eligible for refund is totally incorrect proposition. The adjudicating authority is directed to sanction refund of ₹ 25,00,000/- immediately - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/30604/2018 - A/31313/2018 - Dated:- 11-10-2018 - Mr. M.V. RAVINDRAN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Shri Lalit Mohan Chandra, Advocate for the Appellant. Shri Dass Thavanam, Superintendent/AR for the Respondent. ORDER 1. This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. HYD-EXCUS-MDAP2-250-17-18 dated 19.02.2018. 2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are the appellants are manufacturers of electrical fans; during the year 2007, offic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... adjudication order was passed. The lower authorities after issuing show cause notice, restricted the refund claim to an extent of ₹ 18,96,019/- and rejected refund claim of ₹ 25 lakhs. Aggrieved by such adjudication order, an appeal was preferred before the first appellate authority. The first appellate authority in the impugned order has deprecated the findings of the adjudicating authority for two grounds raised for rejection as being technical in nature and held legally unsustainable, however, he agreed with the views of the adjudication authority that the amount of ₹ 25 lakhs for which credit was raised in PLA, was not debited during 2007 and was subsequently debited in 2017, hence refund claim filed on 23.02.2017 is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 58) ELT 1058 (Tri-All)] and Usha International [2017 (357) ELT 532 (Tri-Mumbai)]. 4. Learned departmental representative submits that current account/PLA which is maintained by the appellant was credited by an amount of ₹ 25 lakhs when they deposited the amount during the investigation of the records but they never debited the amount in order to show the receipt of the amount in the Government Treasury. It is his submission that till the refund claim was rejected by the adjudicating authority i.e., on April, 2017, appellant had not debited the PLA by the amount. It is his submission that on the contrary, appellant had been misguiding the higher judicial forum that they have deposited an amount of ₹ 25 lakhs during investigati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anction of refund. In response to this, in the grounds of appeal the appellants have mentioned that they made a debit entry in the PLA, hence they are entitled for refund of the amount is cash. They enclosed a copy of a folio of PLA for the month of April, 2017 showing debit of ₹ 25,00,000/- 7. It can be seen from the above reproduced Para, the only reason for rejecting the refund claim is that the appellant has not debited the PLA with the amount of ₹ 25 lakhs an debited the same in April, 2017 only. Hence, the refund claim is premature. In my considered view, the first appellate authority has not considered the issue holistically, as it is on record and admitted, Order-in-Original No. 34/2009 dated 30.10.2009 confirmed de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
