2018 (6) TMI 113

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... barring refund of such amount in cash - refund allowed in cash - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
Shri M V Ravindran, Member (Judicial) Shri M.R. Melvin, Superintendent (AR) Advocate for appellant None for respondent ORDER These two appeals are filed by Revenue against Order-in-Appeal No: NGP/EXCUS/000/APPL/628-629/16-17 dated 28/02/107 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs (Appeals), Nagpur. 2. None appeared on behalf of respondent despite notice. Since the issue involved in this case falls in a very narrow compass, the appeals are taken up for disposal even in the absence of any representation from the respondent. 3. Heard Learned Authorised Representative. 4. The relevant facts that arise for conside .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of in Slovak India Trading Company Pvt Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise other decisions is incorrect. 7. Learned Authorised Representative would also rely upon the judgment of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Steel Strips v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Ludhiana [ 2011 (269) ELT 257], Modipon Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Ghaziabad [2015 (324) ELT 718 (Tri.Del.)] and Phoenix Industries Pvt Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Raigad [2015 (330) ELT 303 (Tri.Mumbai)] for the proposition that there being no provision for refund of CENVAT credit in cash to the assessee, the impugned order is incorrect. 8. On consideration of the submissions by Learned Authorised Representative and on perusal of the record .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 10. Subsequently after recording the arguments made by both sides and reproducing the provisions of Rule 5 in paragraph No. 13 their Lordships in paragraph 15 has recorded following ratio which is applicable in the case in in hand. "15. The order of the Karnataka High Court has further been confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the SLP mentioned in the above paragraph. Taking into consideration, the Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002, we are of the view that the Tribunal was not correct while relying upon the judgment of the Larger Bench in Gauri Plasticulture (P) Ltd. as Rule 5 in no way prohibits the payment of the refund amount in cash and more particularly when after a proper adjudication of matter an amount of ₹ 63,001/ .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X