TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 557X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal - the Respondent is entitled for refund claims for the cenvat credit contained in the goods cleared to merchant exporter against CT-1 certificate - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - Appeal No. E/60555/2016 in E/Stay/60475/2016 - Final Order No. 60732 / 2017 - Dated:- 20-4-2017 - Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) And Mr. Devender Singh, Member (Technical) Shri. Satyapal, AR- for the appellant Shri. Jagmohan Bansal, Shri. Naveen Bindal, Shri. P.C. Patnayak- for the respondents ORDER Per Ashok Jindal: The Revenue is in appeal against the impugned order. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent is engaged in the manufacture of wires cables and availing cenvat credit on the said go ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y view, therefore, the refund claims are to be rejected. 5. On the other hand, the Ld. Counsel for the respondent submits that the refund claims of cenvat credit lying unutilised in their cenvat credit account for the clearances made to 100% EOUs and clearance made to mega projects is squarely covered by the decision of Hon ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Shilpa Copper Wires (Supra) which has been affirmed by the Hon ble Apex Court in SLP No. 19717/2010 dated 06.01.2011, therefore, the refund claim of cenvat credit lying unutilised in their cenvat credit account for clearances made to 100% EOUs and mega projects are admissible. 6. With regard to the refund claims of cenvat credit lying unutilised their cenvat credit account o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4,15 and 16 it was observed thus:- 14. we have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and after considering their submissions, we are of the view that the issue raised by the Revenue in the present Tax Appeal is squarely covered by the decision of Amitex Silk Mills pvt. Ltd. (Supra), Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Ginni International Ltd. and Snaghi Textiles Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise- 2006 (206) ELT 854 (tri. Bang.) - 2006-TIOL-1805-CESTAT-Bang. So far as the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Amitex Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd. (Supra) is concerned, it is true that the appeal is admitted by the Apex Court, however, no stay was granted by the Apex Court. It is, however, more important to note t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ribunal has placed reliance while deciding the case of the present respondent, we are of the view that no purpose will be served in keeping this matter pending, awaiting the outcome of the Apex Court s decision in the case of Amitex Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd. (supra), especially when in two other matters, the Apex Court has already dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue. 16. In the above fact situation, we are of the view that no question of law much less any substantial question of law, arises out of the order of the Tribunal and even if it arises, the answer is very obvious and we, therefore, hold that the Tribunal is justified and has not committed any substantial error of law in dismissing the appeal of the Revenue and confirming the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... titled to the impugned refund claims. As far as, the issue of non-submission of any bond/letter of undertaking by the appellant is concerned, I find that the adjudicating authority is totally misconstrued and misconceived to hold that only the manufacturer exporter filing the refund claim should execute the bond. In fact, the same can be submitted by the merchant exporter also in terms of Notification No. 42/2001-CE (NT) dated 26.06.2001. When the necessary bond has been executed by the merchant exporter of the appellant, the appellant cannot be punished for non compliance of a procedural formality given nowhere in the law. 13. We have also gone through the procedure laid down under Notification No. 5/2006 ibid. There is no condition on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
