2005 (5) TMI 200 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. 180-182/2004 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) Cochin.
2. Denial of cash refund of Rs. 2,28,308/- by Commissioner (Appeals).
3. Whether refund should be granted through Modvat or by cheque when Cenvat credit cannot be utilized.

Analysis:
1. The appeals were filed against Order-in-Appeal No. 180-182/2004 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) Cochin. The appeals involved parties and the Revenue contesting the same Orders-in-Appeal. The details of the appeals were presented in a tabular format showing the appeal numbers, appellants, impugned orders, and amounts involved.

2. The case involved M/s. Alampally Brothers Ltd., Aluva, manufacturing LPG cylinders cleared to Public Sector oil companies for the period 1999-2002. The issue arose when there was excess payment of Central Excise duty, leading to a show cause notice for denial of refund on unjust enrichment grounds. The lower authority initially sanctioned the refund, but the Commissioner (Appeals) modified the order. The Commissioner restricted the refund amount by cash to the extent of duty paid in PLA during each specific year, differing from the lower authority's decision.

3. The key argument revolved around whether the refund should be granted through Modvat or by cheque when the party could not utilize Cenvat credit. The party contended that denial of cash refund of Rs. 2,28,308/- by the Commissioner (Appeals) was unjustified and unsustainable. The Revenue relied on legal precedents stating that refund for Cenvat credit should not be given in cash, but only through credit entries in Modvat account.

4. Upon review, the Tribunal found that the original authority's decision to grant the refund by cheque was appropriate. The Tribunal distinguished the cases cited by the Revenue, emphasizing that the present case involved a refund of duty paid partly through Cenvat credit and partly through PLA, not solely through Modvat. As there was no statutory rule mandating refunds only through Cenvat account credit, the Tribunal upheld the original authority's decision, allowing the party's appeal and rejecting the Revenue's appeal.

This judgment clarifies the criteria for granting refunds in cases where Cenvat credit cannot be utilized, emphasizing the legality of refunding duties paid through a combination of credit and cash methods.