9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (9) TMI 421X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n behalf of the appellants ld. Counsel Shri V.S. Venugopal submitted that vide Order No. 60/2000, dated 30-11-2000 the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai II Division, II Commissionerate, Chennai had allowed them refund of Rs. 10,84,461/-. He further submitted that in the above order there is no mention that an amount of Rs. 2,73,133/- which were paid in CENVAT credit would be allowed by way of credit in CENVAT register namely RG 23A and the remaining amount of Rs. 8,11,328/- would only be paid in cash. The Assistant Commissioner has allowed in full the refund of Rs. 10,84,461/- which is to be normally paid in cash. He also pointed out that the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) and the lower authority that the appellants ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... id, refund of duty by cash or cheque is admissible. He also drew my attention to the judgments rendered by Hon ble High Court at Mumbai in the case of Deccan Sales Corporation Another v. R. Parthasarathy Others reported in 1982 (10) E.L.T. 885 (Bom.) wherein also it has been held that proforma credit is admissible not only by adjustment in RG 23A. He also invited my attention to the judgments rendered by the CEGAT, ERB, Kolkota in the matter of Ashok Arc v. CCE, Jamshedpur reported in 2002 (145) E.L.T. 591 (Tri-Kolkata) wherein the Bench held that the refund can be given in cash. 3. Appearing on behalf of the Revenue ld. DR, Shri C. Mani invited my attention to the Board s letter F.No. 211/2/80-CX-6, dated 12-5-81 Circular No. 41/81 i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cash. There was no bifurcation of the refund amount of Rs. 10,84,461/- to be paid in cash as well as to be adjusted in the CENVAT account. The observations of both the authorities below vide Order No. 34/2002, dated 12-9-2002 and by the Commissioner (Appeals) in his Order No. 52/03 (M-II), dated 8-4-2003 to the fact that if the appellants were aggrieved, they ought to have preferred an appeal against Order-in-Original No. 60/2000, dated 30-11-2000 is also improper and illegal inasmuch as there was no cause for the appellants/assessee to feel aggrieved by the order of the Assistant Commissioner who had sanctioned an amount of Rs. 10,84,461/- to be paid in cash in the absence of any order of bifurcation to be adjusted in the CENVAT account ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
