9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 673X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rer towards payment of duty of excise on any final product cleared for home consumption and where for any reason such adjustment is not possible, the manufacturer shall be allowed refund of such amount subject to such safe guards, conditions and limitations as prescribed in the relevant notification. The Respondent had applied for refund of unutilized CENVAT credit amounting to Rs.1,23,04,382/- and Adjudication authority as per the order dated 16.06.2009 sanctioned only Rs. 88,37,166/- though the Appellant admits that the CENVAT credit available against the goods exported during the same period was Rs. 1,23,04,383/-. Conclusion - The entire proceedings initiated against the Respondent are unsustainable. Refund is allowed. Appeal of Revenue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ENVAT credit amounting to Rs. 4,02,70,471/- towards clearance of finished goods for home consumption during the period from April to June, 2008, While the amount of refund claim of the credit on account of export during the said period was only Rs.1,23,04,383/- which proves the fact that the Respondent has not satisfied the conditions spelt out in clause No. 1 2 of the Notification No.5/2006 CE (NT) dated 14.03.2006. Thus the impugned order dated 25.02.2013 issued by the Commissioner is not legal and proper. 4. The Ld. Counsel for the Respondent submits that the appeal itself is untenable and liable to be dismissed as infructuous. The Revenue's appeal on merit on the same ground have already been, not only dismissed by the Commissioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Power Products Vs. Union of India (2020 (372) E.L.T 30 (Allahabad) held that once the adjudication has taken place under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Department cannot proceed to recover on the basis of 'erroneous refund' under Section 11A so as to enable the refund order to be revoked, as the remedy lied under Section 35E, ibid for applying to the Appellate Tribunal for determination and not invoking Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944. The Ld. Counsel also relied on large number of decisions in support of their contentions. 5. Heard both sides and perused the records. 6. We find that it is an admitted fact that the Respondent was holding CENVAT credit in their account at the relevant time and as per Section 5 o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
