9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (5) TMI 947X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant s factory was already closed, it was directed to pay in cash and the amount has already been paid to them in cash. Revenue filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that such refund has to be ordered by way of credit in RG23A Part - II account. If no cash payments towards duty were made through PLA and the credit would have remained unutilized in the said CENVAT account, such credit cannot be allowed by way of cash - adjudicating authority should have examined as to whether after payment of this duty from the CENVAT account, the appellant paid duty from their PLA account as decided in the case of Kochar Sung-up Acrylic Ltd. (2010 (8) TMI 330 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI) and Slovak India Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. (2006 (7 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the adjudicating authority vide Order-in-Original No. 128/2000 dated 19.12.2000 dropped the demand of duty. 2.1 In the meantime, the appellant filed refund claim consequent to Order-in-Appeal dated 28.9.1998. The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise vide Order-in-Original No. 26/99 dated 30.3.99 rejected the refund claim on the ground of unjust enrichment. The appellant filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals), which was rejected vide Order-in-Appeal No. 207/2003 dated 2.6.2003. The appellant filed appeal before this Tribunal and this Tribunal by Final Order No. 27/2004 dated 1.1.2004 remanded this matter to the adjudicating authority to examine the claim of refund. In denovo proceedings, the adjudicating authority by Order-in-Ori ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T 199 (Tri. LB) held that refund in cash paid from CENVAT account would not be eligible. He also relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Lavkush Textiles Vs. CCE - 2012 (282) ELT 545. He further submits that the appellant had not placed any evidence that after reversal of the credit they have paid duty from the PLA for the subsequent clearances. 5. After hearing both sides and on perusal of the records, I find that in the instant case, there was a demand of duty of RS.2,61,818/- which was confirmed by Order-in-Original No. 25/96 dated 27.3.1996. The appellant paid the said amount through the CENVAT account for the purpose of filing appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). It is seen that there are several rounds of liti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... India Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. (supra). The learned AR strongly relied on the decision of Lavkush Textiles (supra). In that case, the appellants after debiting the amount from the CENVAT account they have not paid any amount from their PLA account and therefore the Tribunal observed that they are not entitled for refund of CENVAT credit in cash. Hence the said case law is not applicable to the present case. 7. In view of the above discussion, the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) is set aside and the order passed by the adjudicating authority is restored subject to verification of subsequent payment of duty from PLA as discussed above. The appeal filed by the appellant is disposed of in the above terms. (Dictated and pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
