TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 1057X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Commissioners mentioned in Section 35 B (2) must necessarily consist of two Commissioners. Even on merits also, the issue stands decided against the Department by detailed order of the Tribunal in the respondents own case reported in [2011 (2) TMI 584 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI]. In view of this, we do not find any merit in the appeal of the Revenue - Decided against Revenue. - Excise Appeal No.E/2064/2006-EX[DB] withE/Cross/241/2006 - Final Order No. 54932/2014 - Dated:- 12-12-2014 - Mr. Rakesh Kumar And Mr. S. K. Mohanty,JJ. For the Appellant : Shri.R.K.Grover, DR For the Respondent : Shri.Jitin Singhal, Advocate ORDER Per: Rakesh Kumar The facts leading to this appeal are as under:- 1.1 The respondents are manufa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t have filed a Cross-Objection. 2. Heard both the sides. 3. Shri R.K. Grover, ld. D.R., assailed the impugned order by reiterating the grounds of appeal and pleaded that the cash refund under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules is subject to the condition that the manufacturer has not availed the benefit of duty draw-back or of input duty rebate under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, that in this case the exports have been made under Advance License Scheme and Advance Licence benefit together with the Cenvat Credit would amount to double benefit, and that in view of this, the impugned order is not correct. He also relied upon the Apex Court s judgment in the case of Union of India v/s. Playworld Electronics Pvt. Ltd. reported in 198 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the Tribunal vide judgment reported in 2008 (226) ELT 222 (Tri.Del.), that the only prohibition in Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 for granting cash refund of the accumulated cenvat credit is that the manufacturer in respect of the goods exported has not availed input duty rebate or duty draw-back, that there is no requirement that for claiming cash refund under Rule 5, the exports should not have been made against advance licence, and that since in this case neither draw-back benefit has been claimed nor the input duty rebate under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules has been claimed, the denial of the refund under this rule is incorrect. He therefore plead that there is no infirmity in the impugned order. 5. We have considered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
