Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2019 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (9) TMI 16 - AT - Central ExciseRefund claim - CENVAT credit account that remained unutilized upon closure of business and surrender of registration certificate - HELD THAT:- Tribunal in COMMR. OF CUS. & C. EX., BHOPAL VERSUS BOMBAY BURMAH TRADING CORPN. LTD. [2005 (8) TMI 178 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI] and in COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, AHMEDABAD-I VERSUS ARCOY INDUSTRIES [2004 (4) TMI 175 - CESTAT, MUMBAI] , was considering the appeal of Revenue against the sanction, in cash, of refund of duties collected without authority of law and relief had been granted even though collected through debit of the MODVAT/CENVAT credit account. In these, as well as that of the Larger Bench in GAURI PLASTICULTURE (P) LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, INDORE [2006 (8) TMI 225 - CESTAT, MUMBAI] , it has been held that cash refund is not precluded even if duty was not paid in cash. All these pertained to ongoing business where the discharge of duty liability itself was in dispute - The present proceedings arise, not from discharge of duty liability on the part of appellant but of credit taken on discharge of duty liability by their suppliers. The issue decided in the case of VOLTAS LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE PUNE IV [2018 (4) TMI 352 - CESTAT MUMBAI] where it was held that It is clear that legislative intent did not envisage the monetisation of CENVAT credit in the event of impossibility of utilisation. CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 is not an exemption scheme but a contrivance to ensure that the incidence of duty or tax is borne by the ultimate purchaser of goods or service in a chain. Appeal dismissed.
|