9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (3) TMI 277X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ued to them after 15-8-2000 but utilised the same for payment of central excise duty for the first fortnight of August, 2000 on 19-8-2000. The Central Excise Audit party visited their premises for audit and pointed out this mistake. They accordingly debited the amount of Rs. 33,044/- from PLA vide Entry No. 29, dated 20-9-2001 and took equal amount of credit in their RG-23A Part II account. Subseq ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appellants have not taken a fresh credit or credit of an amount for which refund application was required. The appellants debited the required amount from PLA and same amount was taken as credit in Modvat credit account which was earlier debited incorrectly. He relied on the following decisions :- 1. CCE, Chandigarh v. Kumar Auto Cast Ltd. [1996 (82) E.L.T. 137 (Tribunal)] where it was held ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n Para 7(c) that correction of accounting entries are required to be made as per Rule 226 (ii) with sanction of and in presence of proper officer. 3. On considering the facts of the case, I find that in this case PLA debit by the appellants and taking credit of equal amount in RG 23A Part-II is simply an accounting act and it was done on direction of Central Excise audit party. It is not the case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hort payment, it is only a question of debiting an amount from one account and crediting the equivalent amount in the other account. If the debit is accepted by the department from PLA then there is no reason to deny them the credit in RG 23A, Part-II Account. I, therefore, find no merit in the impugned order and same is set aside. The appeal is allowed. Order dictated & pronounced in open Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
