2019 (5) TMI 1404

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ctional Superintendent has also certified that since October 2015, there is no production and the appellants are filing NIL return - The Appellate Commissioner should have considered the above facts and should have applied the reasoning that when there is no production and the Appellants have sold/ cleared the machinery and capital goods itself that means that they have closed down their production and the factory is lying closed. The appellant s are eligible for refund of accumulated amount of modvat / cenvat credit - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
MR. RAMESH NAIR, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) And MR. RAJU, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Sh. K.I. Vyas & Raj Vyas, Advocate for the Appellant Sh. T.G. Rathod, Authorized Representative for the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... that since the party has sold capital goods on payment of duty through cenvat credit, therefore, it can be concluded that the factory is not yet closed. They have, therefore, not come out of the modvat / cenvat scheme. He thus rejected the appeal. Aggrieved, the appellants are before us. 3. Ld. Counsel Shri K. I. Vyas appearing for the appellant submits that the impugned order has been passed in disregard to various judgments passed by the Tribunals and High Courts, wherein the refund of accumulated cenvat credit has been allowed. The Appellate authority has failed to appreciate that the details of removal of capital goods were already on record. They vide letter dated 24.7.2017 had submitted copy of monthly returns for the months of May a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... therefore, the accumulated credit of cenvat credit cannot be refunded to them. He reiterates the findings of the appellate authority. 5. We have considered carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides and perused the records. We find that the appellant factory was closed down its production activity since October 2015 and they were filing NIL return. The jurisdictional Superintendent has also certified that since October 2015, there is no production and the appellants are filing NIL return. The Appellate Commissioner should have considered the above facts and should have applied the reasoning that when there is no production and the Appellants have sold/ cleared the machinery and capital goods itself that means that they ha .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X