TMI Blog2010 (8) TMI 913X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... None, for the Respondent. ORDER These are four appeals filed by the Revenue. The respondents were engaged in the manufacture of bulk drugs and had operated under the Cenvat scheme. The respondents used to export their finished goods and claimed refund of Cenvat Credit accumulated on account of such exports in terms of Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 (CCR). The assessee wound up their operations and surrendered its registration certificate on 7-8-2007. Refund claims filed in respect of four quarters under Rule 5 of CCR were allowed by the Original Authority. Revenue filed appeals against the Orders-in-Original before the Commissioner (Appeals). Vide the orders impugned in the appeals, the Commissioner (Appeals) sustained t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sioner should have directed the assessee to reverse the credit in respect of inputs lying in stock. The refund claim was filed in Annexure 43C and not Form A which was the appropriate form for the relevant refund application under Rule 5 of CCR. The refund claim was not substantiated as admissible in terms of condition No. 2(a) of Notification No. 5/2006-C.E. (N.T.). This condition prescribed quantum of export vis-a-vis domestic clearances to be made in the quarter to qualify for the refund claim. The refund claims were therefore not admissible. 3. The respondents are not represented. They have furnished written submissions and have requested the Tribunal to decide the matter taking into account the points raised in the same. 4. I hav ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dit in its accounts at the time of closure of factory. It had ceased to be a manufacturer. I find that in the Slovak India Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. case (supra), the Hon ble High Court of Karnataka ruled as follows :- 5. There is no express prohibition in terms of Rule 5. Even otherwise, it refers to a manufacturer as we see from Rule 5 itself. Admittedly, in the case on hand, there is no manufacture in the light of closure of the Company. Therefore, Rule 5 is not available for the purpose of rejection as rightly ruled by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has noticed that various case laws in which similar claims were allowed. The Tribunal, in our view, is fully justified in ordering refund particularly in the light of the closure of the factory ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tilizing the credit otherwise available to him, they would have been in a position to use the same towards payment of duty on their final product, which obligation they had to discharge from their PLA account. As such, on the success of their claim subsequently, if the assessee is maintaining Modvat credit and is in a position to use the same for future clearance, it should be normally be credited back in the same account from where it was debited i.e. RG-23A Part II account. However, if an assessee is not able to use the credit on account of any reasons, whatsoever (which may be closure of his factory or final products being exempted, etc.) the refund becomes admissible in cash or by way of credit entry in PLA to the extent duty paid in ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
