9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 653X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l. The appellant opted for exemption notification No. 50/2003 dated 10.6.03 for exemption from payment of duty with effect from 28.11.03. 3. In view of the above claim of respondents, they were advised by their Central Excise officers to reverse the credit of Rs. 9,29,288/- involved in the stock of final product, semi- finished goods and raw materials lying as such in their stock as on 28.11.03. The same was reversed by the respondents 'under protest'. Subsequently, they filed the refund claim of the amount so revered by them on the ground that they were not required to reverse the same. 4. The original adjudicating authority rejected the refund claim of the appellant. However, on appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) took note of various Larger ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CCR-02, the only Rule providing for reversal as on 28.11.2003, was inapplicable to their case since the exemption they had opted for, was not under a notification based on the value or quantity of annual clearances. (iii) The only provision of law which called for reversal of such credit in the circumstances the appellant was, was under Rule 11(3) of the CCR04. However, that rule was inserted only w.e.f 01.03.2007. This rule could not applied retrospectively to demand reversal of credit taken days back before 28.11.2003. 10. These views are further fortified by the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh in the case of CCE, Chandigarh vs. Saboo Alloys Pvt. Ltd. reported as [2010 ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mount of credit already taken on inputs lying in stock or in semi finished / finished goods could at best remain unutilized in the books of account of the appellant. 13. It, therefore, follows that the appellant are indeed entitled to the refund of the said amount of Rs. 9,29,288/-, if otherwise in order. Further, this amount otherwise refundable, is to be refunded only by way of recredit to their Cenvat account as it pertained to the duty paid on the inputs lying in stock or in process or contained in final products lying in stock with the appellant as on 28.11.2003. This amount cannot be refunded to the appellant in cash. 6. The Revenue in their grounds of appeal have nowhere contended how the said decisions relied upon by the appellate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
