9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (6) TMI 450X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n, since the order relates to a claim of rebate, in our view this Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to decide the appeal. The appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. - Excise Appeal No.40462 of 2018-DB - FINAL ORDER NO.41592/2021 - Dated:- 4-6-2021 - SMT. SULEKHA BEEVI C.S, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND SHRI P. VENKATA SUBBA RAO, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri K. Senguttuvan , Advocate for the Appellant Ms. Sridevi Taritla, Authorized Representative for the Respondent ORDER The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of Motor Vehicle spares and holds Central Excise registration. They have Units in other locations and one among them is the Auto Division Unit at Kannur, Tiruvalluvar District. The appellant, which is an LTU ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amount in their books of account to the tune of ₹ 8,34,13,798/- and then transferred to Irungattukottai Unit after intimating the department vide letter dated 31.08.2015. The original authority held that this credit taken by Kannur Unit in August, 2015 is to be treated as fresh credit taken by the Kannur Unit and, therefore, the transfer of such credit later to Irungattukottai Unit is against the amended provision laid in Rule 12A(4) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and that such credit is not available to Irugattukottai Unit. After adjudication, the original authority held that the inter-unit transfer of credit made by the appellant is not in accordance with law as such transfer is not allowed after 11.07.2014. The rebate claims were rej ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s virtually in their Suspense Account. After the refund claims filed under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 were rejected the appellant has taken re-credit, which is permissible under law. Such re-credit cannot be considered as fresh credit. For the same reason, the inter-unit transfer is not hit by the amended provision of Rule 12A(4). That the rejection of rebate is erroneous and prayed that the appeal may be allowed. 4. The Bench raised queries as to whether the Tribunal would has jurisdiction to consider the issue of rejection of rebate claims. This was countered by the learned counsel explaining that the present issue is not with regard to rejection of rebate claim and the question for consideration is whether the re-credit taken ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t, 1963 (54 of 1963) (hereafter in this Chapter referred to as the Board) or the 3[Appellate Commissioner of Central Excise] under section 35, as it stood immediately before the appointed day; (d) an order passed by the Board or the 4[Commissioner of Central Excise], either before or after the appointed day, under section 35A, as it stood immediately before that day: 5[Provided that no appeal shall lie to the Appellate Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal shall not have jurisdiction to decide any appeal in respect of any order referred to in clause (b) if such order relates to,- (a) a case of loss of goods, where the loss occurs in transit from a factory to a warehouse or to another factory, or from one warehouse to another, or d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
