9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 653X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y and rejected the appeal of the appellant. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellant is a Private Limited Company and is basically an exporter of various goods and commodities and had incidentally engaged in the manufacture of articles of plastic falling under Chapter 39 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellant is an exporter of goods and commodities and is a status holder i.e. Star Export House under Foreign Trade Policy. In terms of para 3.7.7 of the FTP, the additional customs duty/excise duty paid in cash or through debit under the Target Plus shall be adjusted as cenvat credit or duty drawback as per rules framed by the Department of Revenue. During the month of June 2009 appellant closed their operatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2015 (325) E.L.T. 205 (Tri.-Mum) f) CIT V. Thana Electricity Supply Ltd. 1994 (206) ITR 727 (Bom.) The Honble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Union of India V. Slovak Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. cited supra analysed Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2002 (which is identically worded to Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004) and answered the following substantial question of laws, which are impugned in the instant case also: a) Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal is right in ordering for refund even if there is no provision in Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules 2002, to refund the unutilized credit? b) Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal is right in ordering for r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of unutilized cenvat credit where there was no manufacture due to closure of factory. Moreover since the assessee has come out of modvat scheme, refund of unutilized cenvat credit had to be made as per Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. The learned counsel further submitted that the judgments of the Karnataka High Court which was affirmed by the Supreme Court has been relied upon in the case of CCE, Hyderabad Vs. Apex Drugs Intermediates Ltd. reported in 2014 (314) E.L.T. 729 and the same has been affirmed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh reported in 2015 (322) E.L.T. 834 and has also been followed by the Bombay Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Century Rayon Twisting Unit Vs. CCE, Thane-I reported in 2015 (325) E.L.T. 205. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vice, and where for any reason such adjustment is not possible, the manufacturer or the provider of output service shall be allowed refund of such amount subject to such safeguards, conditions and limitations, as may be specified, by the Central Government, by notification; Provided that no refund of credit shall be allowed if the manufacturer or provider of output service avails drawback allowed under the Customs and Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules, 1985 or claims rebate of duty under Central Excise Rules, 2002 in respect of such duty or claims rebate of Service Tax under the Export of Service Rules 2005 in respect of such tax. 5. In the present case it is not disputed that the appellant has closed their operations rela ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
