TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 1564X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ants that although they have submitted the documents in support of their claim before the lower authorities but the same was not considered by any of the authority below. Matter remanded to the Adjudicating Authority to decide the issue afresh, after providing reasonable opportunity to the appellants and after taking into consideration the documents produced by the Appellants - appeal allowed b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f ₹ 62,231/- inadvertently they had debited an amount of ₹ 6,38,824/- in the Cenvat Account of Service Tax in their ER-1 Return under the head for other payments. Therefore they had paid the amount of ₹ 5,76,503/- in excess. On realising the mistake, immediately the Appellants informed the Range Superintendent vide letter dated 16.12.2015 that while punching the debit amount in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t. The Appellants did not reverse the amount, therefore a show cause notice dated 24.1.2017 was issued alleging excess credit and directing reversal of that excess amount. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand with interest and penalty and the same was upheld by the ld. Commissioner by the impugned order. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the Appellants and learned Auth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1.2016, 9.2.2016 etc. in support of their claim but the same were not taken into consideration by the authorities below. He also submits that the question of refund does not arise in the facts of this case since it was a inadvertent error in punching the duty figures in ER-1 Return and the said excess debit neither relates to any supply, nor for any credit nor for any payment of past liability. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
