TMI Blog2023 (6) TMI 293X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9/- from their Kolkata unit from PLA code number of Hyderabad unit was wrongly mentioned in the GAR-7 Challan and as a result the amount though deposited, but under a wrong assessee code number. It is the submission of the Appellants in their grounds of appeal that mentioning of the wrong code number was through inadvertence by the person, who was handling the e-payment matters. On detection of the mistake the Appellants brought the matter to the notice of the Deputy Commissoiner of Central Excise, Taratala-II Division intimating that the total amount of Rs. 58,40,599/- was paid against the GAR-7 Challan dated 05.03.2010 and 06.03.2010. The Tribunal in the case of GUALA CLOSURE (INDIA) PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., DAMAN [ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing Cenvat Credit which is what exactly has been done in the instant case by the Appellant. In the instant case has been raised for contravention of Rule 8(3A) ibid restricting utilization of Cenvat credit during the period of default which provision has been declared ultra vires/invalid by Court, hence the demand cannot be sustained and the Appeal, thus, succeed on this count. Appeal allowed. - Excise Appeal No.683 of 2011 - FINAL ORDER NO. 75280/2023 - Dated:- 27-4-2023 - HON BLE SHRI P.K. CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND HON BLE SHRI K. ANPAZHAKAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) None for the Appellant Shri S.Mukhopadhyay, Authorized Representative for the Respondent ORDER PER : P.K. CHOUDHARY : The facts of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o made. The whole issue is whether the payment made mentioning the wrong assessee code number in the Central Excise account is not considered as any payment. Several submissions were made in the reply to the Show Cause Notice, but the Ld.Commissioner assuming the aforesaid payment as non-payment and proceeded on and passed the order confirming the demand. Hence the present appeal before the Tribunal. 2. When the matter was called, none appeared on behalf of the Appellant nor any prayer for adjournment has been received. Since the Appeal is an old one pertaining to the year 2011, the same is taken up for disposal with the consent of Ld.Authorized Representative for the Department. 3. Heard the Ld.Authorized Representative for the Depar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Appellant that merely because payment was made putting wrong code number, it cannot be said that the payment was not made. We find that vide Board s Circular No.58/7/2003-ST dated 20.05.2003 it was clarified that even though payment is made by putting wrong code number, the assessee should not be asked to pay again and even if assessee has paid again, the earlier payment shall be refunded. We find that the Tribunal in the case of Gualala Closure (I) Pvt.Ltd. v. CCEDaman reported in 2008 (228) ELT 39 (Tri.Ahmd. ) held that an amount deposited under different heads in TR-6 Challan of the cost accounting problem, but since admittedly the Appellants paid the duty under different code, will not be held liable for making the payment again and t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Hon ble Supreme Court. The Hon ble Calcutta High Court in the said case, has declared the provisions of Rule 8(3A) ibid as invalid and further has held that the Revenue cannot take a different stand and parity has to be extended to the assessee. 8. We find that the demand in the instant case has been raised for contravention of Rule 8(3A) ibid restricting utilization of Cenvat credit during the period of default which provision has been declared ultra vires/invalid by Court, hence the demand cannot be sustained and the Appeal, thus, succeed on this count. 9. We accordingly, set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential reliefs, if any. (Dictated and pronounced in the open Court.) - - TaxTMI - TMITax - Ce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
