TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 23X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gly, irrespective the amount was not actually deposited against the appellants ST Code, the fact remains is that the notice of impugned mistake was to the Department since April 2011 itself. In the given circumstances, the allegations of the Department about suppression of facts on part of the appellant with the mention that the mistake came to the notice only at the time of Audit is not sustainable specially in a case where the duty has been paid, however, to a wrong Excise Code. Extended period of limitation - Held that:- The period in dispute is of the year 2011. The show cause notice has been issued to the year 2014. The impugned mistake was in the notice of Deptt. since the year 2011 - SCN is barred by limitation. Appeal allowed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the period in dispute amounting to ₹ 67,918/- was deposited by Challan No.00004 dated 30.03.2011 to the credit of Central Government. However, in the name of wrong depositor i.e Rajeevated Engineering Allied Products against a wrong Service Tax Code number. It is submitted that it happened due to clerical/ typographical error. When the said mistake was brought to the notice of Department, the appellant was advised to file the refund claim. The said claim was initially rejected vide order No. 341/R/2011 dated 30th September, 2011. However, Commissioner (Appeals) vide Order No. 108 dated 30th August, 2013 allowed the refund of Service Tax. It is further submitted that the appellant requested to accept the said refunded amount as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e relevant facts. The extended period was rightly invoked. Appeal is accordingly prayed to be dismissed. 4. After hearing both the parties and perusing the entire record, I observe that there is annexed the order of Commissioner (Appeals) bearing No. 108 dated 30th August, 2018 vide which the appellant was allowed the refund of ₹ 69,119/- as was deposited by him vide a Challan No. 00004 dated 30th March, 2011, however, against a wrong Service Tax Code and in the name of a wrong depositor. The Commissioner (Appeals) in the said order has clearly observed that the amount deposited in the name of M/s. Rajeevated Engineering Allied Products has been debited in the Bank account of M/s. Rajeev Associates that is the appellant herein. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that the consequence of entire payment not being recognised as valid cannot result into harsh consequences incurring further liability of repayment of basic duty with interest and penalties. If the amount is deposited and duly credited in Govt. account, it cannot be treated as non-payment of duty. Above all, it cannot entitle the Department to invoke the extended period of limitation. The period in dispute is of the year 2011. The show cause notice has been issued to the year 2014. The impugned mistake was in the notice of Deptt. since the year 2011. Resultantly, I hold that the show cause notice herein is barred by limitation. Seen from this angle itself, the order under challenge is not sustainable. Same is accordingly set aside. Appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
