2017 (11) TMI 1097 - AT - Central Excise

Refund of unutilized CENVAT credit - Rule 5 of CCR, 2004 - Held that - there are no force in the contention that the show cause notice only seeks to reject the refund claim on the ground that Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules does not attracted which has been settled by the Hon ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Union of India Vs. Slovak India Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. 2006 (7) TMI 9 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT , wherein it was held that if the unit is closed and the Cenvat credit is lying in balance, the same should be refunded in cash - refund allowed - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Refund of unutilized Cenvat credit amount due to restriction by preventive officers.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed by Revenue against the Order-in-Appeal No.104/2011 dated 26.4.2011. The issue revolved around the refund of the amount lying unutilized in the Cenvat credit account of the respondent. The respondent claimed that preventive officers had restricted them from using the Cenvat credit available for clearances of tops, directing them to pay the duty liability through PLA. The refund claim was rejected citing non-coverage under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. However, the first appellate authority set aside the rejection and allowed the refund claims to the respondent.

The Revenue's case in the appeal was summarized as follows: (i) The respondent should not have availed Cenvat credit as they benefited from an exemption notification, (ii) No evidence showed the respondent was prevented from utilizing the Cenvat credit, and (iii) The reliance on a specific decision was deemed incorrect. On the other hand, the respondent argued that they were forced to pay duty through PLA or cash due to restrictions, and the tops manufactured were dutiable until a specific date, making them eligible for the refund claim.

The first appellate authority's decision was supported by detailed reasoning, including the respondent's submission of being forced to pay duty to retain exemption benefits and the subsequent exemption of the goods from duty payment. The authority cited relevant case laws and provisions to support the conclusion that the respondent was eligible for the refund of the unutilized accumulated credit balance. The Tribunal found no grounds to interfere with these findings and upheld the decision in favor of the respondent.

The Tribunal concurred with the first appellate authority's analysis, emphasizing the correctness of the decision based on established legal principles and relevant precedents. The Tribunal noted the lack of contradictory evidence presented by the Revenue and affirmed the eligibility of the respondent for the refund claim under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, as supported by judicial decisions from the High Courts of Karnataka and Bombay. Consequently, the appeal by Revenue was deemed meritless and rejected accordingly.