9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (3) TMI 702X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Rule 8(3A) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 by discharging the duty in cash for which a separate proceeding has been initiated by claiming refund in cash before the adjudicating authority, which on rejection, appeal is pending before the learned Commissioner (Appeals) as claimed by the appellant. The present refund claim in cash arose as the CENVAT Credit amount was lying in balance as on date of closure of the factory. Appeal dismissed. - Excise Appeal No. 87392 of 2016 - A/85249/2020 - Dated:- 14-2-2020 - HON BLE DR. D.M. MISRA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND HON BLE MR. SANJIV SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri V.M. Doiphode, Advocate for the Appellant Shri Anil Choudhary, DC, Auth. Representative for the Respondent O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hough for the said period duty was already paid by debiting their CENVAT account. Consequently, they filed a refund claim on 20.06.2012 seeking refund of the duty paid twice during the said period through cash as well as by debiting their CENVAT account. The adjudicating authority sanctioned a refund of ₹ 1,79,86,516/- (after adjusting the amount of ₹ 25,48,821/-) by crediting their CENVAT Credit account vide order dated 18.01.2013. Aggrieved by the said order, they filed an appeal before the learned Commissioner (Appeals), which is pending. Further, he has submitted that the appellant had applied for surrendering of the Central Excise registration as on 09.07.2015 due to closure of factory and consequently, they filed the prese ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , 2011 to October, 2011 even though CENVAT Credit account was utilized during the said period in discharging their monthly liability of payment of duty. The learned Advocate has further submitted that since their appeal filed against rejection of refund claim in cash of ₹ 1,79,86,516/- is pending before the learned Commissioner (Appeals), therefore, this appeal be also kept pending till the Commissioner (Appeals) decide the said refund claim. 5. Learned AR for the Revenue reiterates the findings of the learned Commissioner (Appeals). He has submitted that the appellant had filed the cash refund claim of ₹ 1.44 crores under Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 on account of closure of their factory as the said CENVAT Credi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Hence, the entire duty amount was later paid through cash in compliance with the Rule 8(3A) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. But, since the Department forced them to pay duty in cash, even though they had paid through CENVAT Credit, therefore, on closure of the factory, the CENVAT Credit amount should be refunded to them in cash. 7. We do not find merit in the contention of the appellant inasmuch as the present refund claim arose four years after the compliance of the Rule 8(3A) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 by discharging the duty in cash for which a separate proceeding has been initiated by claiming refund in cash before the adjudicating authority, which on rejection, appeal is pending before the learned Commissioner (Appeals) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
