TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 853X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssued the show-cause notice. Once Rule 8(3A) has been declared as unconstitutional which means that the payment made by the appellant on 15.2.2013 itself was correct and there was no requirement to pay the same again in cash but having been paid the same by cash again, the appellant is entitled to get back this amount paid by cash and as per the provisions of Section 142 of CGST Act, the appellant is entitled to get the refund in cash if the same arises on account of the litigation. Refund allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/20378/2018-SM - Final Order No. 20155/2019 - Dated:- 12-2-2019 - MR. S.S GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER Mr. Dayananda. K, CA For the Appellant Mrs. Kavitha Podwal, Superintendent (A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Department. On being pointed out, the appellants reversed the said CENVAT credit of ₹ 26,93,388/- in their CENVAT Account on 13.3.2014 under protest. On these allegations, a show-cause notice dated 6.1.2015 was issued to the appellant and after following the due process, the original authority confirmed the demand. Aggrieved by the said order, appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (A), who rejected the same. Hence, the present appeal. 3. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same is contrary to the facts and the law and binding judicial precedents. He further submitted that the appellant had defaulted in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was no requirement to pay the same again by cash and the Department should not have issued any notice. He further submitted that the appellant had reversed the amount under protest and the same is liable to be refunded along with interest. He also submitted that as per the provisions of Section 142(8) of CGST Act, any refund arising out of the previous litigation should be refunded by cash. 5. On the other hand, the learned AR defended the impugned order and submitted that suo moto re-credit is inadmissible under law and the appellant was required to file the refund claim. 6. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the material on record, I find that the appellant did not pay the excise duty on the DTA sal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
