9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 1105X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssioner of Central Excise, Indore [2006 (8) TMI 225 - CESTAT, MUMBAI], Steel Strips Vs. Commissioner of C.Ex., Ludhiana [2011 (5) TMI 111 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI] and Karnataka High Court judgment in the case of Union of India Vs. Slovak India Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. [2006 (7) TMI 9 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT]. - Appeal allowed by way of remand - E/284 & 285/2011 - A/88798-88799/16/SMB - Dated:- 26-7-2016 - Shri Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) Ms. Aparna Hirandagi, Advocate for Appellant Shri Sanjay Hasija, Supdt. (A.R) for respondent ORDER These appeals are directed against Order-in-Appeal No. M-I/AV/261-262/2010 dated 12.10.2010 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise, Mumbai Zone-I. 2. The fact of the case i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... redit balance which is not permissible under any provisions of law. The appeal filed by the appellants before the Commissioner (Appeals) came to be rejected by concurring the findings of the adjudicating authority. Therefore the appellant is before me. 3. Ms. Aparna Hirandagi, Ld. Advocate for the appellants submits that the refund claim is in respect of the cenvat credit which relates to the export of final product. Since the appellant otherwise intended to utilize the said credit on any occasion as and when arise maintained the balance of cenvat account however when the factory has come to closure that there was no option of utilizing same credit, hence they applied for the refund. Since the refund is in respect of the credit bala ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioner of Cus. C. EX., Indore 2009 (236) E.L.T. 248 (M.P.) (iii) Tata Motors Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur 2012 (284) E.L.T. 593 (Tri.-Kolkata) Upheld by Jhar-HC-2013 (296) ELT 7 (Jhar) Upheld by SC-2015 (319) ELT A-47 (SC) (iv) Rama Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh 2009-TIOL-100-HC- P H-CX (v) Deepak Spinners Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore 2014 (302) E.L.T. 132 (Tri.-Del.) (vi) Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-II Vs. Patodia Syntex Ltd. CESTAT Order No. A/86731/16/SMB dt. 22.03.2016 She further submits that since the accumulated credit is on account of exports and lying unutilized because it could not be used for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., Raigad 2015 (330) E.L.T. 3030 (Tri.-Mumbai) 5. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides. The fact of the case is that the Cenvat Credit balance in the appellant s accounts is due to non utilization as the finished goods have been exported. At the same time, the appellants have claimed the refund of cenvat balance due to closure of the factory. This issue has been considered by various High Court s judgments as well as two Larger Bench decisions of this Tribunal. I found that the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order has not dealt with any of such judgments. Therefore the matter need reconsideration in the light of the judgments of Larger Bench in the case of Gauri P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
