9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (6) TMI 531X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... process and finished stock lying on 09.07.2004. appeal is allowed. - E/671/08 - Mum - A/613-614/2011-WZB/C-II(EB) - Dated:- 23-6-2011 - Shri Ashok Jindal, Shri P.R. Chandrasekharan, JJ. Appearance Shri Prakash Shah, Advocate for appellant Shri H.B. Negi, SDR For Respondent Per Ashok Jindal The appellant has filed this appeal against the order of rejection of their refund claim. 2. Facts of the case are that the appellant is the manufacturer of yarn and textile. As per the Government policy on textile articles, the appellant has opted for exemption from payment of duty as provided under Notification No. 30/2004 dated 09.07.2004 with effect from July, 2004. Prior to July, 2004 the appellant was paying excise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e provisions of Rule 11(3) are not made applicable retrospectively with regard to their refund claim is maintainable as per Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. He relied on the decision of Union of India v. Slovak India Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. - 2006 (201) ELT 559 (Kar.) which was affirmed by the hon'ble apex court as reported in 2008 (223) ELT A170 (S.C.). He also relied on the decision in the case of Jain Vanguard Polybutylene Ltd. v. CCE Nashik - 2009 (247) ELT 658 (Tri. - Mumbai) which was affirmed by the Bombay High Court vide 2010 (256) ELT 523 (Bom.). He also relied on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Shree Prakash Textiles (Guj.) Ltd. v. CCE Ahmedabad - 2004 (169) ELT 162 (Tri. - Mumbai) and in the case of Bombay Dye ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cords which needs examination. Now we come to the issue whether the provisions of Rule 11(3) of the CENVAT credit are applicable to the case or not? Admittedly these provisions came with effect from 01.03.2007 and are not applicable retrospectively. Therefore, the said provisions are not applicable to the facts of this case. Now we come to the issue whether the claim of the appellant of refund is maintainable under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 or not? As in the case of Slovak India Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. (supra) the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court has answered the references in paragraph 5 of the order which is reproduced herein below:- "5. There is no express prohibition in terms of Rule 5. Even otherwise, it refers to a manufact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
