9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (3) TMI 8 - AT - Central ExciseRefund of unutilized CENVAT credit - appeal not preferred against Revenue - Held that - As against the order dt 1.10.2012, no appeal has been preferred by the Revenue. The order of the First Appellate Authority dtd 1.10.2012 has attained finality in respect of the litigation entered by the appellant and the amounts lying in balance in the Cenvat account - Further litigation which has been entered into by the lower authorities by going into merits of the case is unwarranted and the Adjudicating Authority should have granted the refund to the appellant following the directions given by the First Appellate Authority in OIA dt 1.10.2012. The impugned order is set aside and the lower authorities to are directed to quantify the amount of refund that needs to be sanctioned and refund the same - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
Refund claim rejection based on closure of unit and surrender of central excise registration. Analysis: The appeal was against the order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax (Appeals) - AHMEDABAD-II. The appellant, a manufacturer of finished goods, had availed cenvat credit of service tax and central excise duty paid on inputs for goods exported and cleared for home consumption. The appellant closed the unit and surrendered central excise registration, seeking a refund of the unutilized balance in the cenvat credit account. The claim was rejected through a series of proceedings, including a remand by the First Appellate Authority for verification and quantification of the refund claim. The Adjudicating Authority, in the third round of litigation, again rejected the claim based on the closure of the unit, citing the Modipan Ltd judgment. The First Appellate Authority upheld this decision, referring to the Phoenix Industries Pvt Ltd case and the Modipan Ltd judgment. The appellant argued that the orders of the Adjudicating Authority and the First Appellate Authority were erroneous as the OIA dated 1.10.2012 was not challenged by the Revenue and was in favor of the appellant. The appellant also cited the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Slovak India Trading Co Pvt Ltd, which was upheld by the Hon'ble Apex court. The Revenue contended that the OIA of 1.10.2012 only remanded the matter for reconsideration by the Adjudicating Authority, who concluded that the appellant was not entitled to a cash refund. The Tribunal found the impugned order to be incorrect and not in accordance with the law. It highlighted the First Appellate Authority's order of 1.10.2012, which supported the appellant's eligibility for the refund under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The Tribunal emphasized that the order of the First Appellate Authority had attained finality, and further litigation by the lower authorities was unwarranted. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, directing the lower authorities to quantify and refund the amount as per the First Appellate Authority's directions. In conclusion, the appeal was allowed, providing consequential relief as per the law.
|
