9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (12) TMI 720X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssion of Notification No. 5/2006-CE(NT) dated 14.03.2006, the amount that is claimed as refund under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules shall be debited by the claimant from his cenvat credit account at the time of making the claim . In the impugned orders the Commissioner (Appeals) has wrongly considered the claim under Notification No. 27/2012 instead of Notification No. 5/2006. The reliance made upon the provisions of Notification No. 27/2012- CE (NT) dated 18.06.2012 is absurd and illegal since the refund claim was admittedly filed in the present matter under the provisions of Notification No. 5/2006-CE (NT) dated 14.03.2006. it is pertinent to note that under Notification No. 5/2006, the requirement for debiting the refund claim amo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erest as per the Apex Court decision in Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Excise Appeal No.10493 of 2014 With Excise Appeal No.12764 of 2019 - Final Order No. A/12202-12203/2022 - Dated:- 15-12-2022 - MR. RAMESH NAIR, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Shri S. Suriyanarayanan, Advocate for the Appellant Shri Ghanasyam Soni, Joint Commissioner (AR) for the Respondent ORDER These appeals are directed against the Orders-In-Appeal No. DMN-EXCUS-000-APP-260 261-13-14 dated 30.12.2013 and CCESA-Audit-SRT/VK-48/208-19 dated 19.12.2018 passed by Commissioner (Appeals) which are impugned in the present appeals. In both the appeals common issues are involved, therefore, these appeals are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efore me. 2.1 In this background, Appellant was also issued protective show cause notice on the basis of impugned OIA dated 30.12.2013. The same was adjudicated vide Order-In-Original dated 28.10.2015. Being aggrieved with, Appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who vide impugned vide OIA dated 19.12.2018 upheld the OIO. Hence, the present appeal E/12764/2019 is before me. 03. Shri S. Suriyanarayanan, learned counsel for the appellant submits that since the exports by the EOU unit and the accumulation of unutilized cenvat credit of Service tax paid on various services used in the export of manufactured goods is not in dispute, just because the cenvat credit balance was not transferred to the DTA unit's boo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellant can be asked to fulfil the condition of Notification No. 27/2012-CE (NT) on the date of sanctioning of the refund claim just because delayed the refund by issuing show cause notice on illegal ground. 3.2 He further submits that in any case, appellant had not carried over the credit lying in the books of EOU unit to the Cenvat Credit register of the DTA unit on the date of debonding. Appellant showed the credit as Modvat credit refund receivable in its financial account and Balance Sheet from financial year 2011-12(during which the EOU was debonded) and until grant of the refund in 2013-14. 04. On the other hand, Shri Ghanasyam Soni, Learned Joint Commissioner (AR) defended the impugned orders. 05. After considerin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... conditions laid down under Rule5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Notification No. 5/2006-C.E. (N.T.) dated 14-3-2006.I also find from the refund order that all the claims were sent to Range offices for verification and the same have been duly verified by the Range officers. The charge of double benefit made by the revenue is absolutely incorrect on the face of the records in as much as the appellant even though did not carry forward and debit the refund amount in their cenvat account. However it is the case of the revenue that such cenvat credit was never utilised. In my view the non transfer of unutilisedcenvat credit is as good as reversal of cenvat. The charge of the double benefit will sustain only when the assessee in one hand c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
