TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 1407X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing authority has sanctioned refund of Cenvat Credit of ₹ 28,79,05,870/- for the period February 2006 to March 2010 to M/s.Automobile Corporation of Goa Ltd. Honda, under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. 3. Revenue is urging following grounds in their appeal memorandum. The above refund has been sanctioned by the adjudicating authority under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and vide Notification No.5/2006-CE(NT) dated 14/03/2006 certain safeguards conditions and limitations have been set out for grant of refund. It is the contention of the Revenue that the adjudicating authority has not verified whether the appellant has fulfilled all the conditions laid down in the above said notification nor has he discussed these matt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re this Tribunal. The said appeal was considered by this Tribunal and this Tribunal vide order No.A/721-723/11/EB/C-II dated 08/09/2011 held that the respondent would be eligible for the refund claims inasmuch as they are the manufacturers of the motor vehicles and therefore, relying on the decision of the Hon ble Patna High Court s decision in the case of Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd. and another Vs. UOI 1988 (35) ELT 617 (Pat) affirmed by the Hon ble Supreme Court as reported in 1997 (94) ELT A-128 (SC) and the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Swaraj Mazda Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh 2000 (125) ELT 959 (Tri) it was held that the respondent would be eligible for the refund claim. Accordingly, order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Ld. Counsel for the respondent submits that as early as in 2008 the appellate authority had held that the respondent would be eligible for the refund claim subject to verification of the claims by the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner and who was directed to verify the claims and allow the refund. Thereafter in 2011 also the lower appellate authority in pursuance of this Tribunal order, remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority for verification of the claims of the appellant. The adjudicating authority verified the claim and sanctioned refund. Therefore, the appellate authority is right in concluding that the Revenues appeal has no merits. 7. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides. 7.1. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 22/06/2012 in his office and the Range office and in para 4.3 it has been stated that necessary verification has been conducted by the Range office and except for an amount of ₹ 10,24,918/- refund claims were in order and accordingly, he has allowed the refund of ₹ 28,79,05,870/-. 7.2In view of the above, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the lower appellate authority who has recorded the findings as under: I have examined the case records. This case has already seen one full cycle of litigation upto the Hon ble CESTAT and at every stage the appellants claim has been upheld. Apart from that verification has been done at the level of Assistant Commissioner and the Range Superintendent. The claims have also b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
