2008 (7) TMI 218 - AT - Central Excise

Appellants are availing benefit of Notification No.39/01 which provides for refund of duty paid from PLA subject to conditions prescribed therein - appellant had availed credit on HSD oil which was not admissible - refund claim on the ground that they had made the payment of duty from PLA and consequently in terms of Notification No.39/01 they are eligible for the refund since notification expressly not prohibiting any supplementary refund claim refund is to be sanctioned

Summary

Issues involved:
Refund claim under Notification No.39/01-C.E., eligibility for refund, treatment of payment as reversal of cenvat credit, supplementary refund claim, recasting of cenvat register, duty payment through PLA, irregular cenvat credit availed on HSD oil, department's stand on the payment made, reversal of cenvat credit, interest payment, implementation of rules, limitation on claim, appeal disposal.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Refund Claim under Notification No.39/01-C.E.:
M/s Genus Electrotech Ltd. filed a refund claim of Rs.6,29,068 under Notification No.39/01-C.E., which allows a refund of duty paid from PLA subject to specified conditions. The claim was rejected by the department due to non-production of the original triplicate copy and the claim being considered as part of a previous refund order. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the decision, stating that the payment made was a reversal of wrongly availed cenvat credit, making the appellant ineligible for the refund.

2. Treatment of Payment as Reversal of Cenvat Credit:
The appellant made a payment through PLA in Feb.'06, which the department treated as a reversal of cenvat credit. The appellant sought permission to recast the cenvat register to be eligible for the refund. The department's stand was supported by the lower authority, stating that the payment was indeed a reversal of cenvat credit.

3. Supplementary Refund Claim and Irregular Cenvat Credit:
The issue arose as the appellant failed to reverse the irregularly availed cenvat credit on HSD oil, opting instead to make a cash payment. The Tribunal noted that the payment should have been treated as duty payment through PLA, making the appellant eligible for a refund under Notification No.39/01. The department's assumption of the payment as a reversal of cenvat credit was deemed incorrect, and the Tribunal ruled in favor of allowing the supplementary refund claim.

4. Implementation of Rules and Interest Payment:
To regularize the transactions, the appellant was required to reverse the cenvat credit and pay interest separately in cash. By complying with these requirements, the appellant would be entitled to the refund amount claimed. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of following the rules properly and acknowledged the appellant's willingness to reverse the cenvat credit and pay the interest.

5. Appeal Disposal and Conclusion:
The appeal was disposed of based on the Tribunal's findings, allowing the appellant to receive the refund amount of Rs.6,29,068 upon fulfilling the necessary requirements of reversing the cenvat credit and paying the interest. The judgment highlighted the need for adherence to the rules and the fair resolution of the refund claim issue.

This detailed analysis covers the various legal aspects and decisions made in the judgment, addressing each issue comprehensively while preserving the key legal terminology and significant details from the original text.