9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 1105X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt. The background of the case is that while shifting their factory from Jogeshwari to Goregaon, they had accumulated cenvat credit in their cenvat account on 30.8.2003 for which they made an application to the department for transfer of credit from the Cenvat account of Jogeshwari unit to Goregaon unit. While shifting of the factory they surrendered the registration certificate of the previous factory. The department has not responded their request for transfer of credit. As regard the registration of Goregaon unit that also surrendered by the appellants on 8.8.2005 and before transfer they had taken the cenvat credit which was transferred from Jogeshwari unit at the time of surrender of the registration on 8.8.2005. In the cen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot merely credit balance in general, but accumulation of Cenvat credit is due to non utilization as the finished goods have been exported, therefore the refund is admissible. In support of her submission she placed reliance on the following judgments: (i) Union of India Vs. Slovak India Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. 2006 (201) E.L.T. 559 (Kar.) Upheld by SC- 2008 (223) ELT A-170 (SC) (ii) Century Rayon- Twisting Unit Vs. Commissioner of C.Ex., Thane-I 2015 (325) E.L.T. 205 (Tri.-Mumbai) (iii) Commissioner of C.Ex.& Cus. (Appeals) Tirupati Vs. Kores (India) Ltd. 2009 (245) E.L.T. 411 (Tri.-Bang.) (iv) Commissioner of C. Ex. & S.T., Lucknow Vs. Jai G ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of exports and lying unutilized because it could not be used for clearances for home consumption, the same cannot be rejected on the ground of limitation as relevant date defined under Section 11B does not cover such situation. 4. On the other hand, Shri Sanjay Hasija, Ld. Supdt. (A.R.) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. He submits that the appellant claimed the refund on the ground that the Cenvat amount for which refund was sought for is against the export of their final product. In this case the statutory provision under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and Notification issued thereunder covers such refund. He submits that as per the notification issued un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th any of such judgments. Therefore the matter need reconsideration in the light of the judgments of Larger Bench in the case of Gauri Plasticulture (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore 2006 (202) E.L.T. 199 (Tri.-LB), Steel Strips Vs. Commissioner of C.Ex., Ludhiana 2011 (269) E.L.T. 257 (Tri.-LB) and Karnataka High Court judgment in the case of Union of India Vs. Slovak India Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. (supra). Taking into account facts that the Cenvat balance is lying unutilized due export of the final product. I, therefore of the view matter needs to be remanded. The impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for reconsideration of the whole issue in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
