TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 314X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the PLA and due to the dispute being not settled for 16 years, the appellant cannot be denied of their benefit to cash refund. The appellant is now an SSI unit and their clearance are very much within the limits prescribed under the SSI. The ratio of decision of Karnataka High Court in the case of UOI Vs Slovak India Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. [2006 (7) TMI 9 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA (BANGALORE)] which has been upheld by the Supreme Court in UOI Vs Slovak India Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. [2007 (1) TMI 556 - SUPREME COURT] supports the appellant's contention that they are eligible for cash refund as it was not due to appellant's fault or lapse in availing the credit. Had the department not objected to their availment, their need to have paid the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ommissioner of Central Excise vide Order-in-Original No.11/2003 dated 30.6.2003 denied the credit to the tune of 2,89,487/- and allowed credit of ₹ 2,61,996 out of ₹ 56,68,245. Balance amount of ₹ 54,06,249 was ordered to be recovered and the credit allowed as early as on vide Order-in-Original No.13/96 dated 6.2.96 to the tune of ₹ 8,13,816 was ordered to be adjusted against the above demand of ₹ 54,06,249. After further rounds of litigation at various level, the issue on merits viz. availability of MODVAT credit based on the endorsed invoices / gate passes, was decided in favour of the Appellant vide Order-in-Appeal No.47/2010 (M-I) dated 04/08/2010 (Pages 21 to 26 of the Typed Set). In other words, the issue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the Range officials which got settled only during 2010 vide OIA No.47/2010 (M-I) dt. 4.8.2010 in favour of the appellant; that had the department granted refund in 1994 itself there would have been no necessity for the appellant to have made payment by cash in PLA and therefore question of lapsing of credit would not arise; that since the appellant is availing cenvat credit exemption under Notfn 8/2003, they are unable to avail credit at this juncture; that but for the erroneous interpretation of the department in denying the credit, the appellant would have availed and utilized the credit in 1994 itself, had it been granted without any objection; that decision of Tribunal in the case of Plas Pack Industries Vs CCE Ahmedabad - 2009 (2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lation of credit due to export under Rule. This order need not be relied upon. In any event, the said decision of Hon'ble High Court was distinguished and the appeal filed by assessee against rejection of refund of credit available in their books of accounts on the date of closure of unit, was dismissed by the Tribunal in a recent decision in Phoenix Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs CCE Raigad - 2015 (330) ELT 303 (Tri.-Mumbai). 6. Heard both sides in the matter. The issue to be decided is as to whether the appellants are eligible for cash refund of ₹ 11,03,303/- on account of credit under transitional provisions in terms of Rule 57H of erstwhile CER 1944. In this case, it is very clear that the appellants were prevented from taking of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ilise the credit, the CEGA Tribunal has rightly held that the Revenue should refund the amount to the respondent in cash. There being no substantial question of law, raised for reference, we are not inclined to ask the Tribunal to refer any issue. The appellant had also placed reliance on the judgement of the Karnataka High Court in the case of UOI Vs Slovak India Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. 2006 (201) ELT 559 (Kar.) wherein the facts were that respondent, M/s.Slovak India Trading Co.Pvt. Ltd. was engaged in the manufacture of shoes and they had surrendered their registration and filed refund application for ₹ 4,15,057/-. The High Court had observed that the admitted facts would reveal of a claim of cash refund and that refund cannot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
