2016 (11) TMI 631 - AT - Central Excise

Refund pertaining to the excise duty paid in excess of final product - Held that - refund claim for cash refund rejected on the ground that when the refund sanctioned to the appellants, the appellants had not surrendered their central excise registration. It records that the manufacturing activity had just stooped but the finished goods/parts/components manufactured at that time were lying in the unit and were being cleared on payment of duty. We find that the ability of the appellants to utilize the cenvat credit has not been challenged on facts. Reliance placed on the decision of the case of Alampally Brothers Ltd. vs. CCE, Cochin 2005 (5) TMI 200 - CESTAT, BANGALORE where it was held that where the appellant is not a position to utilized the credit, the refund should be given in cash Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Refund claim of excise duty paid in excess.
2. Challenge of refund order before Commissioner (Appeals).
3. Applicability of cash refund when unable to utilize credit.
4. Rejection of cash refund due to non-surrender of excise registration.
5. Decision on refund through Modvat or by cheque when unable to utilize Cenvat credit.

Analysis:
The case involved the appellants, M/s. Orient Craft Fashion Technologies Ltd., who sought a refund claim through credit in the RG-I Part-II. The appellants contested the order before the Commissioner (Appeals) and subsequently appealed to the Tribunal. The main argument presented was regarding the refund of excise duty paid in excess, emphasizing the inability to utilize Modvat/Cenvat credit due to the cessation of factory operations. Citing precedents like STL Products (P) Ltd. and Alampally Brothers Ltd., the appellants sought cash refund as they were unable to utilize the credit.

The Tribunal noted that the impugned order rejected the cash refund claim based on the appellants not surrendering their central excise registration despite the manufacturing activity ceasing. It was observed that the appellants' ability to utilize the Cenvat credit was not disputed. Referring to the case of Alampally Brothers Ltd., the Tribunal highlighted the decision to grant a refund by cheque when the party could not utilize the credit. The Tribunal emphasized that the case was not merely a Modvat refund but a refund of duty paid partly through Cenvat credit and partly through PLA. The Tribunal concluded that there was no statutory rule limiting the refund to credit in the Cenvat account only, thus upholding the original authority's decision to grant cash refund.

In light of the above analysis, the Tribunal found the decision in the case of Alampally Brothers Ltd. directly applicable to the present case, leading to the allowance of the appeals. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal, affirming the legality and propriety of the original authority's order to grant cash refund in the given circumstances. The judgment highlighted the distinction between refund mechanisms and upheld the grant of cash refund when the party was unable to utilize the Cenvat credit effectively.

This detailed analysis of the issues raised in the judgment showcases the considerations of refund claims, the applicability of cash refunds, and the legal principles guiding such decisions, as interpreted by the Tribunal in the context of the specific case of M/s. Orient Craft Fashion Technologies Ltd.