9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 23X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Assessee's CENVAT credit account - refund allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - C.M.A. No. 1729 of 2015 - - - Dated:- 7-6-2017 - Rajiv Shakdher And R. Suresh Kumar, JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr. S. Murugappan For the Respondents : Mr. A. P. Srinivas JUDGMENT 1. This is an appeal filed by the Assessee, against the order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (in short, 'the Tribunal') dated 21.01.2015. 2. The Assessee is aggrieved by the fact that while it had claimed the refund of unutilized CENVAT credit, amounting to ₹ 40,26,692/-, the authorities below sanctioned the refund, only to the extent of ₹ 39,19,239/-. Thus, in effect, the authorities below exc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs.2,68,23,516/- 4) Debits during the period from 01.10.2003 to 31.12.2003 a) Debits for payment of duty Rs.1,05,32,840/- b) Debits expunged for refund of ₹ 24,24,071 Rs.1,29,56,911/- 5) Closing balance of Cenvat credit as on 31.12.2003 Rs.1,38,66,605/- 6) (a) Amount of input credit involved in the Physical stock of raw materials as on 31.12.03 (27,37,760 kgs. @ 3.54/kg.) Rs.96,91,670/- (b) Credit involved on inputs contained in Finished goods NIL (c) Credi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... conclusion that the unutilised credit available in the Assessee's CENVAT credit account is only a sum of ₹ 39,49,239/-. Furthermore, it was for this precise reason that the assessee was, as indicated above, issued SCN dated 28.9.2004, which was confirmed by the order-in-original, dated 13.09.2004. 4.3. The record shows that the assessee failed in advancing its point of view both before the First Appellate Authority as well as before the Second Appellate Authority, i.e, the Tribunal. The First Appellate Authority, i.e., the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), dismissed the Assessee's appeal vide order 17.12.2004 and as alluded to above, the Tribunal dismissed the second appeal as well, on 21.1.2015. 6. Mr.Murugappan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2002 Rules or the 2002 notification, which provides for safe guards, conditions and the limitations which would have us conclude that the Revenue could have made the aforementioned adjustments against the closing balance reflected in the Assessee's CENVAT credit account. 10. In our view, the methodology followed by the Revenue is not in consonance, either with the Rules or the notification and therefore, such adjustment ought not to have been made. We are, therefore, in agreement with the submissions made on behalf of the Assessee. The impugned Judgment is thus, set aside. The assessee would be refunded the balance amount, equivalent to ₹ 77,453/-. 11. The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. However, there shall b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
