9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 148X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssociate Vice President of the appellant Shri Ashuthosh Nath, Asstt. Commissioner (AR) for the respondent Per: Ramesh Nair The fact of the case is that the appellant, in respect of inputs and raw material imported under heading 9801 as part of project import, availed CENVAT credit only to the extent of 75% in terms of Rule 57Q(3) of Central Excise Rules 1944. There was confusion whether the pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filed in respect of the credit which has not been taken by them whereas the refund application filed under Central Excise Act/Rules, 1944 has to be in respect of refund of duty. Being aggrieved by the impugned order the appellant is before us. 2. Shri K.A. Photographer, Associate Vice-President of the appellant-company submits that in principle credit of 100% is admissible and the appellant has a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tribunal in the case of Grasim Industries Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Trichy 2004-TIOL-266-CEST-MAD. 4. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides. 5. We find that both the lower authorities rejected the refund claim only on the ground that the appellant have not taken the credit of 25% and therefore, refund is not maintainable. We are surprised to note that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing the credit, the appellant is entitled for the credit and the substantial benefit which is legally permissible, the appellant cannot be deprived of the same.
6. We, therefore, hold that the appellant is entitled to take credit of 25% in their MODVAT/CENVAT account. We therefore, set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief.
(Pronounced in Court on 01/12/2016) X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
