2018 (6) TMI 325 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI – Refund of double payment of duty made – For the month of June, 2014, the appellant paid duty of ₹ 17,44,041/- vide challan dated 02.02.2014, in the name of M/s. Kanishk Steel Industries inadvertently. On realising the mistake on the same date, they paid the amount of ₹ 17,44,041/- in their own name – The refund has been denied stating that the amount so paid is lying in the PLA account of M/s. Kanishk Steel Industries and, therefore, the appellant is not eligible for refund.
–
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court of Madras, in the case of M/s. Sundaram Industries Ltd. Vs. CCE Madurai [2015 (5) TMI 416 – MADRAS HIGH COURT], had considered a similar issue, and on production of No Objection letter from the company concerned, it was held by the High Court that refund has to be granted – In the present case also, the disclaimer certificate furnished by the appellant along with the refund claim – rejection of refund is without any lega
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
hk Steel Industries inadvertently. On realising the mistake on the same date, they paid the amount of ₹ 17,44,041/- in their own name. Pursuant to such double payment by the appellants, they filed the refund claim. Show Cause Notice was issued, proposing to reject the claim which, after due process of law, the original authority rejected. In appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the same. Hence, this appeal. 2. On behalf of the appellant, the learned Counsel Shri S. Venkatachalam, submitted that the appellant has produced the bank statement to show that on 07.07.2014 the amount was wrongly paid into the Central Excise Account of M/s. Kanishk Steel Industries Ltd. On realizing the mistake on the very same day, the appellant had paid the amount to their own Central Excise Account/ECC. The refund has been denied stating that the amount so paid is lying in the PLA account of M/s. Kanishk Steel Industries and, therefore, the appellant is not eligible for refund. He adverted to par
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
Sponge Iron Division) 6. The only ground on which the refund has been rejected is that the amount is lying in the PLA account of M/s. Kanishk Steel Industries and, therefore, without proper No Objection Certificate from the said company the appellant cannot be granted refund. The Hon ble High Court of Madras, in the case of M/s. Sundaram Industries Ltd. Vs. CCE Madurai 2015 (321) ELT 37 (Madras), had considered a similar issue, and on production of No Objection letter from the company concerned, it was held by the High Court that refund has to be granted. In the present case also, the disclaimer certificate furnished by the appellant along with the refund claim, reads as under: We hereby undertake that the amount of refund Viz., ₹ 17,44,041-00 (Rupees Seventeen lacks fourty four thousand fourty one only ) will not be claimed by us. The same may please be refunded to CHENNAI FERROUS INDUSTRIES LTD., Gummidipoondi. 7. Thus, it is stated by M/s. Kanishk Steel Industries Ltd. that th
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =