TMI Blog2010 (3) TMI 560X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - E/3093/2003 - A/102/2010-WZB/C-II/EB - Dated:- 23-3-2010 - S/Shri P.G. Chacko, Member (J) and S.K. Gaule, Member (T) Shri H.B. Negi, SDR, for the Appellant. Shri P.V. Patankar, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order per : P.G. Chacko, Member (J)]. - In this appeal filed by the Revenue, the appellant opposes a refund claim filed by the respondent. During the period of dispute (April to December 2001), the respondent had undertaken job work on the billets (raw material) supplied by the principal manufacturer and had returned the job-worked goods (wire rods and bars) to the raw material supplier without payment of duty, claiming the benefit of Notification 214/86-C.E. For undertaking the job work of converting the billets i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the principle of unjust enrichment was not applicable to the case on hand. 2. In the present appeal filed by the Revenue against the appellate Commissioner's order, it is submitted that the benefit of Rule 57AD(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and Rule 6(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules cannot be extended to fuels including furnace oil. We have not found any elaboration of this point in the Revenue's memo of appeal, nor has the learned SDR been able to add anything to it. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that what was claimed by them was only re-credit of the Cenvat credit reversed earlier in their account. It is submitted that the respondent was entitled to take Cenvat credit of the duty paid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anufacturer who admittedly paid duty thereon. 4. The learned counsel has further pointed out that the appeal filed by the department against the Tribunal's Larger Bench decision in Sterlite Industries case was dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court [2009 (244) E.L.T. A89 (Bom.)] on the ground that no question of law arose. In other words, the law laid down by the Tribunal's Larger Bench stood approved. We note that this aspect is clearly discernible from the text of the High Court's judgment in Tata Motors Ltd. v. UOI - 2009 (244) E.L.T. 337 (Bom.). 5. In the result, in terms of the Tribunal's Larger Bench decision, it is held that the respondent is entitled to take re-credit of the Cenvat credit in question in their Cenvat account. We not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
