2019 (1) TMI 699 – CESTAT KOLKATA – TMI – Clearance of Transmission Hardware to State Electricity Boards and also to various Mega Power Projects – N/N. 6/2006-CE dated 01/03/2006 as amended vide Notification No. 46/2008-CE dated 14/08/2008 under Serial No. 91A – Held that:- In the facts and circumstances of the present case, since refund has been made in cash and not by crediting in the Cenvat Credit account of the appellant, the appellant is not getting additional credit for which it has to pay more in cash and less through CENVAT Credit Account. Thus, in effect, it does not make any difference so far, payment of Central Excise Duty is concerned – refund allowed – appeal allowed – decided in favor of appellant. – E/75895/2018 – FO/76593/2
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
d 14/08/2008 under Serial No. 91A, against Project Authority Certificates, backed by undertaking furnished/issued by an officer not below the rank of Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Power, Govt. of India. Such documents are required to be submitted before clearance of goods. 2. A Show Cause Notice dated 22/07/2014 was issued for recovery of refund of ₹ 1,82,901/- along with interest. However, it is seen from the Show Cause Notice that the appellant assessee had debited ₹ 1,82,901/- from their CENVAT Credit account vide RG-23A, Part-II, Entry Serial No. 11 dated 26/02/2013 and also paid ₹ 30,000/- in cash on account of interest vide GAR-7 Challan No. 50473 dated 26/02/2013. 3. Being aggrieved, by the O.I.O. dt. 13/03/2014, th
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
aised one Show Cause Cum Demand Notice and simultaneously filed an appeal before the Lower Appellate Authority. It is the case of the appellant, that the refund order which has been set aside by the First Appellate Authority was not at all erroneous/defective. In any case, it is a Revenue neutral situation since the appellant discharges its duty liability in cash as well as through Cenvat Credit account. The Ld. Advocate strongly contended that the impugned order is erroneous inasmuchas the Lower Appellate Authority has not only disallowed the refund but directed the appellant to pay back the cash refund along with interest. If this is to be done without crediting equivalent amount in electronic credit ledger then, it would lead to holding
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =