9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 316X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ise on the final product, would enrich the Assessee unjustifiably. The Tribunal being a creature of the Act, has to act within the framework of the Act and cannot go beyond that. In the absence of any provision specifically permitting the refund of such credit, in cash, the same cannot be allowed on the basis of equity, justice and good conscious. In the absence of any such rule or provision of law, which learned Advocate has also been unable to show us, we find no justifiable reasons to grant the refund of the said credit. - Decided against the appellant X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... umulated credit. In as much as the same was filed by the appellant in terms of provision of Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, the Adjudicating Authority observed that the said rule is applicable only to the refund of accumulated credit, in case of export of final product. In as much as the appellants final product was not being exported, the invocation of the said rule is inappropriate. 3. On appeal against the said order Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal and upheld the impugned order of the Original Authority. Hence, the present appeal. 4. After hearing both the sides, we find that the legal issue involved is as to whether the appellant is entitled to the refund of the unutilized accumulated credit as on the date of their opting fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... asons to grant the refund of the said credit. 6. Learned Advocate has strongly relied upon the Honble Karnataka High Court decision in the case of Union of India vs. Slovak India Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. reported as 2006 (201) E.L.T. 559 (Kar.). By observing that Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules does not expressly prohibited refund of unutilized credit when the Assessee factory was closed, refund stands allowed by the Hon'ble High Court. However, learned DR has brought to our notice Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of Steel Strips vs. CCE, Ludhiana reported as 2011 (269) E.L.T. 257 (Tri. - LB). The said decision of the Honble Karnataka High Court stands considered by the Larger Bench in the above judgment and its stands held a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Larger Bench decision was given, the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court decision was not upheld. At this stage learned Advocate also brings to our notice another decision of the Single Member Bench of the Tribunal in the case of CCE & ST, Lucknow vs. Jai Ganpati Metals reported as 2015 (322) E.L.T. 730 (Tri. - Del.), wherein the refund of the unutilized credit stands granted by following the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court decision in the case of Union of India vs. Slovak India Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. (supra). On going through the said decision of the Single Member Bench, we find that the Tribunal has simplicitor relied upon the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court decision and has observed that High Court decision has to be preferred to the Larger Bench dec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
