9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 711X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filed a refund claim on 25.09.2006 of Rs. 17,73,743.68 for the period from 08.04.05 to 14.05.06 on the ground that they have paid excess amount in terms of Rule 6 (3)(a)(viii)(4) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 as they should have reversed the amount equivalent to the cenvat credit used in the manufacture of exempted goods. A Show-Cause-Notice dated 29.10.07 was issued proposing to reject the refund claim. The Adjudicating Authority rejected the refund claim. By Order-in-Appeal dated 14.01.2010, the Commr. (Appeals) set aside the Adjudication order and remanded to the adjudicating authority to decide the matter afresh after observing the principles of natural justice. In de novo adjudication, the adjudicating authority sanctioned the refu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sion of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Swastik Sanitary Wires Ltd. Vs. Union of India : 2013 (296) ELT 321 (Guj.). He also relied upon the following decisions : (i) Dy.Commr. of Central Excise, Chennai Vs. Dorcas Market Makers Pvt. Ltd. : 2015 (321) ELT 45 (Mad.) ; (ii) Hind Agro Industries Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Customs : 2008 (221) ELT 336 (Del.) ; (iii) Joshi Technologies International Vs. Union of India : 2016 (339) ELT 21 (Guj.). 5. The ld.A.R. on behalf of the Revenue reiterated the findings of the Commr. (Appeals). He also drew the attention of the Bench to the relevant portion of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mafatlal Industries Ltd. (supra). For proper appreciation of the case, the relev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ules and Notifications or by an erroneous determination of the relevant facts, i.e., an erroneous finding of fact. This class of cases may be called, for the sake of convenience, as illegal levy. In this class of cases, the claim for refund arises under the provisions of the Act. In other words, these are situations contemplated by, and provided for by, the Act and the Rules." 6. In the present appeal, it is not the case that the provisions of the Central Excise Rules are unconstitutional. In other words, it is a case of the tax collected by the authorities under the Rules by misconstruction or wrong interpretation of the provisions of the Act and Rules and therefore, the claim of refund of amount arises under the provisions of the Act. He ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
