9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (7) TMI 838 - AT - Central ExciseCash Refund of CENVAT Credit - Commissioner (Appeals) has held that the refund amount is though admissible to the appellant, but it is not by way of cash, but crediting their CENVAT account, since the amount was initially deposited in their CENVAT account - Held that - The issue is no more res-integra, and covered by the judgement of the Larger Bench of this Tribunal in Steel Strips case 2011 (5) TMI 111 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI , where it was held that When right to refund does not accrue under law, claim thereof is inconceivable. Cash refund of the Cenvat credit is admissible only in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Rule 5 of the CCR, 2004. Since, such a situation is not present in the appellant s case, the cash refund of CENVAT credit is not admissible. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
Issues Involved:
- Whether the appellant is entitled to claim cash refund of the CENVAT credit. Analysis: The appeal was filed against an order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals-V), Ahmedabad, regarding the entitlement of the appellant to claim a cash refund of the CENVAT credit. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) held that while the refund amount was admissible to the appellant, it should be credited to their CENVAT account instead of being refunded in cash since the amount was initially deposited in their CENVAT account. The appellant contended that denial of the cash refund by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) was not in accordance with the law, especially considering that their factory was operational. The Revenue argued that cash refund of the CENVAT credit is only permissible under Rule 5 of the CCR, 2004, and since the prescribed procedure was not followed in the appellant's case, cash refund was not admissible. The Revenue relied on the precedent set by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Steel Strips vs. CCE, Ludhiana, which established that cash refund of CENVAT credit is only allowed in specific circumstances. The Tribunal found that the main issue was whether the appellant was entitled to a cash refund of the CENVAT credit, which was initially allowed by the Adjudicating Authority but later deemed inadmissible by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal noted that the issue had already been addressed in the precedent set by the Larger Bench in the Steel Strips case. The Tribunal referred to the decision in Gauri Plasticulture (P) Ltd. to clarify the circumstances under which cash refund of duty paid out of PLA is admissible. It was emphasized that the law requires a specific provision for refund, especially in cases other than exports. The Tribunal concluded that in the absence of a legal entitlement to a refund, the claim for refund could not be entertained. Therefore, following the precedent and legal principles, the Tribunal rejected the appeal, ruling in favor of the Revenue. In summary, the judgment revolved around the appellant's claim for a cash refund of the CENVAT credit, which was denied by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) and upheld by the Tribunal based on established legal principles and precedents. The decision highlighted the importance of following prescribed procedures and legal provisions for claiming cash refunds, especially in the absence of specific entitlements under the law.
|
