9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (5) TMI 200X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellant Impugned Order Passed by Amount Involved 1. E/1297/2004 M/s. Alampally Brothers Ltd OIA 180-182/ 2004, dated 23-8-2004 CCE (A) Cochin Rs. 2,28,308/- 2. E/1062/04 CCE, Cochin OIA 180/04, dated 23-8-04 CCE (A) Cochin Rs. 8,71,049/- 3. E/l 080/04 CCE, Cochin OIA 181/04, dated 23-8-04 CCE (A) Cochin Rs. 8,22,558/- 4. E/l 097/04 CCE, Cochin OIA 182/04, dated 23-8-04 CCE (A) Cochin Rs. 3,47,634/- 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows : (i) M/s. Alampally Brothers Ltd., Aluva manufacture LPG cylinders which are cleared to Public Sector oil companies namely, IOC, HPCL, BPCL for the period 1999-2000, 2000-2001 and 2001-2002. The assessment was provisional. The provisional assessments were finalised by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (c) During 2001-2002 the party paid duty in PLA to the tune of Rs. 1,19,326/-. The refund sanctioned in cash is Rs. 3,47,634/-. Therefore the refund amount of Rs. 2,28,308/- (Rs. 3,47,634 - 1,19,326/-) is not in order. In the above manner the Commissioner (Appeals) modified the order of the lower authority. In other words, the Commissioner (Appeals) has restricted the refund amount by cash to the extent of the duty paid in PLA during that particular year. He has also held that the CEGAT's decision in Ashok Arc case is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. [3]2. Shri Joseph Kodiandhara ld. Advocate appeared for M/s. Alampally Brothers Ltd. and Shri L. Narasimha Murthy, SDR appeared for revenue. 3. The learned Advocate ur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pped the production of LPG cylinders and only doing occasional repair work are definitely not in a position to utilize Modvat credit. In view of these circumstances the original authority has granted the refund by way of cheque. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the original authority. The case laws relied on by the ld. SDR are clearly distinguishable. It is to be borne in mind that the present case is not a case of refund of Modvat. It is actually a case of refund of duty paid partly through Cenvat credit and partly through PLA. There is no statutory rule which says that refund of duty should be given only through credit in Cenvat account and not through cheque. Hence the order of the original authority is legal and proper. Henc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
