9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (11) TMI 549X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... refund of the accumulated Cenvat credit in terms of Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules. Thus, we find that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the original Adjudicating Authority with regard to sanction of refund claim of accumulated Cenvat credit in respect of goods exported under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Thus, the appellant had made out a prima facie case against impugned order - Stay granted. - E/2129-2131/2010 - Stay Order Nos. S/26-28/2012-WZB/C-II(EB) - Dated:- 16-11-2011 - Shri Ashok Jindal and P.R. Chandrasekharan, JJ. Shri M.H. Patil, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri Y.K. Agarwal, Addl. Commissioner (AR), for the Respondent. ORDER These three appeals and stay applications are directed aga ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n sanctioning the refund as it was also inadmissible in view of the CESTAT final order No. 1170/2007-SM(BR), dated 26-7-2007 in the case of M/s. J.V. Strips Ltd. v. CCE, Rohtak - 2007 (218) E.L.T. 252 (Tri.-Del.) wherein CESTAT interpreted the phrase immediately on receipt of the inputs as such convenient time as is reasonably requisite for doing the things. In the instant case, the delay in availing credit was caused by the assessee s blatant intention to dodge the departmental action for recovery of the erroneous rebate received by them and to claim subsequently the said input stage credit under the Cenvat refund scheme, cannot be termed as reasonable by any stretch of imagination; (v) Though the respondents paid back the said input ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ied with. In other words, when a claim for rebate under Rule 18 has been foregone and the rebate received was paid back along with interest and later on they claimed refund of the Cenvat under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, the benefit under the said Rule cannot be denied merely on the ground that they had initially claimed rebate of duty paid. Further, jurisdictional Additional Commissioner in his order dated 30-3-2009 had given a categorical finding that the appellant had complied with all the conditions subject to which refund under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 was admissible. The order of the Appellate Authority that they did not avail Cenvat credit in respect of duty paid on inputs used in the manufacture of goods exported ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
