2016 (2) TMI 719

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... during the litigation of the matter, the only course of action is to seek refund under Section 11B. However, refund application was already filed with the department and it was not processed. In view of this Tribunal order dated 24/1/2008 there is no dispute that appellant is entitle for refund alongwith consequential relief. In view of this fact, direct appellant to reverse the Cenvat credit taken suo moto by them and the Adjudicating authority is directed to sanction the refund claim in accordance with law. Taking into consideration the facts and the circumstances of the case, since the appellant was entitled to refund after Tribunal order dated 24/1/2008 it is a case of Revenue neutral therefore interest and penalties are dropped. Due t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e case is that there was proceedings on the classification dispute and denial of Exemption Notification of the goods manufactured by the appellant. The said dispute came to be settled by this Tribunal order No. E/1148/97-B-1 dated 8/7/1997. This Tribunal's order was challenged by the department before Hon'ble Supreme Court by way of appeal which was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 20/2/1999. During the proceedings appellant had deposited entire excise duty demand and subsequently after adjudication they paid penalty amount also. The appellant filed refund claim for the said amount vide refund application dated 20/2/1997. The refund was sanctioned but credited into Consumer's Welfare fund vide order in .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... r (Appeals) is not correct and beyond the ground taken by the Revenue in their appeal. He further submits that their refund application was already filed under Section 11B therefore proceedings of the very same application reached up to this Tribunal and this Tribunal has allowed the appeal of the appellant, department was supposed to implement the order of this Tribunal. 4. Shri Ashutosh Nath, Ld. Asstt. Commissioner (A.R.) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. He submits that there is no provision in law to take suo moto re-credit of any amount paid by the assessee therefore Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly denied the re-credit taken by the appellant. In support of his submission, he pl .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X