9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 155X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on where either the assessee has paid the amount in cash or refund is against the export of goods which is not the case here - the refund in cash ordered by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) is absolutely without authority of law - appeal allowed - decided in favor of Revenue. - Appeal No.E/3318/06 - ORDER No.A/94312/16/SMB - Dated:- 18-11-2016 - Shri Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) Shri Sanjay Hasija, Supdt. (A.R.) Appellant None for respondent Order The appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. PII/BKS/240/06 dt. 23.8.2006 passed by Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise, Pune-II whereby the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the cash refund of the amount which was pre-deposited through cenvat account as per the stay ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ccount ordered by the original authority is correct and no cash refund should have been allowed by the Ld. Commissioner. He submits that the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the refund in cash only on the basis of judgment in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Ranchi Vs. Ashok Arc 2006 (193) ELT 399 (Jhar.). He submits that the fact of the case of Ashok Arc (supra) is entirely different from the facts of the present case, therefore the same is not applicable. He further submits that the respondent was very much registered at the time of sanction of the refund by way of re-credit in the cenvat account and was maintaining cenvat account. Therefore the re-credit of the refund amount in the cenvat account is the only option and n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mmissioner (Appeals) is absolutely wrong and without any provision. As regard the reliance placed by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the judgment of Ashok Arc (supra), it is observed that the fact in that judgment is that the assessee was not maintaining cenvat account, whereas in the present case at the time of sanction of refund by way of re-credit in the cenvat account, the respondent was very much working under the cenvat scheme and was maintaining the cenvat account. Therefore, the fact of the Ashok Arc case is different from the facts in the present case. Hence, the ratio of the said judgment is not applicable, I am also of the view that merely by debit in the cenvat account the nature of cenvat credit cannot be changed to cash at the t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
