9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 183X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 was also under dispute. The eligibility of Cenvat Credit in the above facts was extended by retrospective amendment of Rule 16 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. Whereby, the assessee (wire drawing units) becomes entitled for the Cenvat Credit on 13.07.2006. The revenue s contention that the Rule 5 refund is not eligible for interest as the provisions of Section 11B and 11BB are not applicable, for such refund under Rule 5 is no longer under dispute in the light of the jurisdictional High Court of Gujarat judgment in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE VERSUS RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD. [ 2010 (10) TMI 190 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] . Therefore, there is no doubt that the respondent are legally enti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , Rajesh Nathan , Assistant Commissioner ( AR ) for the Appellant Shri, Amal Dave , Advocate for the Respondent ORDER RAMESH NAIR The revenue filed the present appeal against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) dated 08.01.2014. By the impugned order learned Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal of the respondent on the issue of eligibility of the interest on the refund sanctioned by the department. The ground taken by the department in the appeal is that the provisions of the Central Excise Act namely Sections 11B and 11BB do not applied to the refund of Cenvat Credit. It is department s case that the provision of Sections 11B and 11BB, only apply to refund of duty and not to refund Cenvat Credit under Rule 5 of Ce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le Gujarat High Court to allow the interest on refund. 3.1 As regard the contention of the revenue that since the matter was under continuous litigation and after the litigation was over, refund was mature, He submits that in 2006, there was a retrospective amendment and the issue was settled by virtue of the said amendment. The department did not sanction the refund in 2006 when the amendment took place and only sanctioned the claim in 2012. The pendency of the respondent s SCA before the Hon ble Gujarat High Court was already infructuous once the amendment took place in 2006, merely because the SCA was pending it cannot absolve the department from the fact that the amendment, which took place in 2006 took care of the situation and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amount to manufacture, the respondent was not entitle for the Cenvat Credit and consequential refund of the said Cenvat Credit under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 was also under dispute. 4.1 We find that the eligibility of Cenvat Credit in the above facts was extended by retrospective amendment of Rule 16 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. Whereby, the assessee (wire drawing units) becomes entitled for the Cenvat Credit on 13.07.2006. The revenue s contention that the Rule 5 refund is not eligible for interest as the provisions of Section 11B and 11BB are not applicable, for such refund under Rule 5 is no longer under dispute in the light of the jurisdictional High Court of Gujarat judgment in the case of Reliance Industries Ltd (Supr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
