TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 102X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rrect. Even if it is accepted that refund claim should have been filed, when the appellant have made request in writing for re-credit in the cenvat account, the same can be disposed of considering the refund claim of the appellant but instead of disposing request of re-credit both the lower authority has passed orders for recovery of the re-credit amount which is not legal and proper - re-credit of the amount by the appellant is correct and the same cannot be recovered. Unjust enrichment - Held that: - the duty was paid twice on the same clearances however the duty passed on is only one time duty paid on the clearances, therefore the unjust enrichment does not apply. Moreover, the amount paid from Cenvat account has not been considere ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dent vide letter dt. 13.4.2010 advised the appellants to file refund claim. The appellants once again vide their letter dt. 28.4.2010 requested the Superintendent to allow them to take re-credit in the light of the Tribunal decision in the case of Krishna Chemicals Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedbad-I 2009 (244) ELT 580(Tri.-Ahmd.) Since no response was received by the appellant. They have re-credited the amount of ₹ 2,46,676/- and intimated the department vide their letter dt. 29.6.2010 before that the appellant informed the department vide letter dt. 29.6.2010 that they are intended to re-credit the amount. On re-credit of the duty paid in cenvat account, show cause notice was issued proposing recovery of the credit ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his support she placed reliance on the following judgments: (i) Shree Rubber Plast Co. Pvt. Ltd. 2015-TIOL-1285-CESTAT-MUM (ii) M/s. Balmer Lawrie And Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise Service Tax, Vapi 2014-TIOL-625-CESTAT-AHM (iii) NOCIL Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Behlapur 2014-TIOL-203-CESTAT-MUM (iv) ICMC Corporation Ltd. Vs. CESTAT, Chennai 2014 (302) E.L.T. 45 (Mad.) (v) M/s. ICMC Corporation Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai 2012-TIOL-1116-CESTAT-MAD (vi) Sopariwala Exports Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C.Ex., Vadodara-I 2013 (291) E.L.T. 70 (Tri.-Ahmd.) (vii) Krishnav Engineering Ltd. Vs. CESTAT 2016 (331) E.L.T. 391 (All.) (viii) S. Subrahmanyan Co. Vs. Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the appellant have not taken suo moto credit on their own but they made number of request by writing letter to the department regarding re-credit of amount in the cenvat account but the department instead of deciding the re-credit they have issued show cause notice and denied the re-credit which is absolutely illegal and incorrect. Even if it is accepted that refund claim should have been filed, when the appellant have made request in writing for re-credit in the cenvat account, the same can be disposed of considering the refund claim of the appellant but instead of disposing request of re-credit both the lower authority has passed orders for recovery of the re-credit amount which is not legal and proper. All the judgments cited by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
