TMI Blog2012 (12) TMI 946X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re to wait for the decision after adjudication process, there may not be even any reversal at all since the appellant’s stand was upheld by the Commissioner (A). In these circumstances, there is no question of unjust enrichment since there was no need for a reversal in the first place. Therefore availment of credit subsequently could not have arisen. Further, after the Tribunal’s decision upholding the availability of credit, appellants could have taken suo motu credit. Since the Tribunal had passed the order in favour of the appellants, when decision of the L.B. was not available, appellants could have taken credit suo motu which also they did not do - Decided in favour of assessee. - E/775/2012 - A/10073/2013/WZB/AHD - Dated:- 28-12-2012 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iled refund claim on 25-7-2007 for an amount of Rs. 1,71,386/- reversed by them. During the course of scrutiny of the refund claim, the Jurisdictional Range Officer (JRO) requested the appellants to produce the copies of RG23A Pt. II vide which they had reversed the Modvat credit. The appellants vide their letter dated 8-7-2008 informed that they have sold their business to M/s. ICI India Ltd. on 15-5-1998 and have surrendered their registration. RG23A Pt. II pertaining to concerned period has been misplaced. They have submitted copies of RG23A Pt. II with the RT-12s and can be verified. That when an appeal is filed it is compulsory to pre-deposit the duty involved and while making refund of such pre- deposit no documentary evidences are re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed for a reversal in the first place. Therefore availment of credit subsequently could not have arisen. Further, after the Tribunal s decision upholding the availability of credit, appellants could have taken suo motu credit. Since the Tribunal had passed the order in favour of the appellants, when decision of the L.B. was not available, appellants could have taken credit suo motu which also they did not do. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case as discussed above, I do not consider that the decision of the Commissioner (A) holding that there is unjust enrichment is not correct. Moreover, decision of this Tribunal in the case of Prakash Industries Ltd. [2007 (210) E.L.T. 615 (Tri.-Ahmd)] also supports the view that credit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
