TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 316X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Act and cannot go beyond that. In the absence of any provision specifically permitting the refund of such credit, in cash, the same cannot be allowed on the basis of equity, justice and good conscious. In the absence of any such rule or provision of law, which learned Advocate has also been unable to show us, we find no justifiable reasons to grant the refund of the said credit. - Decided against the appellant - Excise Appeal No. 2582 of 2007 - Final Order No. 51831/2016 - Dated:- 17-5-2016 - MS. ARCHANA WADHWA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND SHRI B. RAVICHANDRAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) For the Petitioner : Shri Ankit Totuka, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri M.R. Sharma, Authorized Representative (Jt. CDR) ORDER PER. ARCHA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was filed by the appellant in terms of provision of Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, the Adjudicating Authority observed that the said rule is applicable only to the refund of accumulated credit, in case of export of final product. In as much as the appellants final product was not being exported, the invocation of the said rule is inappropriate. 3. On appeal against the said order Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal and upheld the impugned order of the Original Authority. Hence, the present appeal. 4. After hearing both the sides, we find that the legal issue involved is as to whether the appellant is entitled to the refund of the unutilized accumulated credit as on the date of their opting for the benefit of an exemption Notif ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... said credit. 6. Learned Advocate has strongly relied upon the Honble Karnataka High Court decision in the case of Union of India vs. Slovak India Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. reported as 2006 (201) E.L.T. 559 (Kar.). By observing that Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules does not expressly prohibited refund of unutilized credit when the Assessee factory was closed, refund stands allowed by the Hon ble High Court. However, learned DR has brought to our notice Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of Steel Strips vs. CCE, Ludhiana reported as 2011 (269) E.L.T. 257 (Tri. - LB). The said decision of the Honble Karnataka High Court stands considered by the Larger Bench in the above judgment and its stands held as under :- 5.6 No doubt th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as given, the Hon ble Karnataka High Court decision was not upheld. At this stage learned Advocate also brings to our notice another decision of the Single Member Bench of the Tribunal in the case of CCE ST, Lucknow vs. Jai Ganpati Metals reported as 2015 (322) E.L.T. 730 (Tri. - Del.), wherein the refund of the unutilized credit stands granted by following the Hon ble Karnataka High Court decision in the case of Union of India vs. Slovak India Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. (supra). On going through the said decision of the Single Member Bench, we find that the Tribunal has simplicitor relied upon the Hon ble Karnataka High Court decision and has observed that High Court decision has to be preferred to the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
