TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 653X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t. Ltd. reported as [2009 (12) TMI 125 - HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH]. Eligibility of the appellant for refund of the amount already reversed by them - Held that:- appellant are indeed entitled to the refund of the said amount of ₹ 9,29,288/-, if otherwise in order. Further, this amount otherwise refundable, is to be refunded only by way of recredit to their Cenvat account as it pertained to the duty paid on the inputs lying in stock or in process or contained in final products lying in stock with the appellant as on 28.11.2003. This amount cannot be refunded to the appellant in cash - Decided against Revenue. - Appeal No . 2434 of 2011-SM - ORDER NO . FO/ 50766 /2014-SM(Br) - Dated:- 31-1-2014 - Ms. Archana Wadhwa, J. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ricators [2002 (140) ELT 277 (T-LB)] as confirmed by Hon ble Supreme Court as reported in [2003 (156) ELT A 212 (SC)]. Accordingly he allowed the appeal. Hence, the present appeal by the Revenue. 5. For better appreciation of the reasons adopted by Commissioner (Appeals) for setting aside the impugned order of the original adjudicating authority, the relevant paragraphs from his order is reproduced below:- Having regard to the above provisions of CCR-02 and CCR-04, I have no doubt in my mind that: (i) The appellant had done nothing wrong in taking credit of duty on the inputs lying in stock or in process or contained in the final products lying in stock with them as on 28.11.2003, when they opted for full ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... emption from payment of duty under Notification No.50/03 dated 10.6.2003, was required to be reversed, the decision of Hon ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh in Saboo Alloys case takes procedure over the Hon ble CESTAT decision. 11. Thus as per the law, as it stood during the relevant time, the appellant was neither required to reverse the credit, nor could he utilize the same. The unutilized credit could remain unutilized in their books of account. 12. This brings me to the second issue of eligibility of the appellant for refund of the amount already reversed by them. As noted in para 2 supra, the appellant had paid / reversed an amount of ₹ 9,29,288/- which was attributable to the duty paid on inputs lying in stock or to the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s decision in the case of M/s. Ranbaxy Lab Ltd. vs. CCE, Chandigarh [2010 (253) ELT 578 (Tri-Del)] have not been accepted by the Revenue and an appeal there against is pending before Punjab and Haryana High Court cannot be appreciated inasmuch as there is no stay of operation of the Tribunal s order by the Hon ble High Court . It stands accepted by the Revenue in their ground of appeals that the decision of Hon ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh in the case of CCE Chandigarh vs. Saboo Alloys Pvt. Ltd. [2010 (249) ELT 519 (HP)] has been accepted by them inasmuch as the amount of duty was low. 7. In view of the foregoing discussions, I find that the appellate authority was justified in following the Larger Bench decision as also the decisi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
