TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 931X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Appellant Shri Prashivamurthy, N.K., Deputy Commissioner(AR), For the Respondent ORDER Per: SS GARG This appeal is filed by the appellant against the Order-in-Appeal No.81/204-CE dt. 20/02/2014. 2 Briefly the facts of the case are that the appellants are manufacturers of articles of plastics viz. PP fabric, PP bags, liners etc. falling under Chapter 39 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They are availing the benefit of CENVAT Credit under CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 (CCR, in short), They had applied for refund of unutilised CENVAT credit of ₹ 33,29,003/- lying in their credit account as they had closed their unit. the appellants had filed the refund claim under Rule 5 of CCR and had submitted that the amoun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant paid additional duty of customs and special additional duty while clearing the imported goods for home consumption. Further except for labour charges, appellant's value addition in the processed goods was minimal. Appellant could not utilise entire credit for clearing the processed goods to the high sea seller of the raw material and further the original authority had no basis to assume that accumulated credit was due to exports. Further the original authority ignored the Tribunal's decision in Shree Prakash Textiles (Guj.) Ltd. vs. CCE [2004(169) ELT 162 (Tri. Mum. )]. After hearing the parties, the Commissioner(Appeals) has rejected the appeal of the appellant and hence this appeal. 3 Heard both the sides and perused the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ciate that the appellant had claimed refund of unutilised credit on account of closure of factory. He relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Slovak India Trading Co Pvt. Ltd. [2006(201) ELT 559 (Kar.)] wherein it was held that there was no prohibition under Rule 5 of CCR, 2004 to refund the unutilised credit when the factory is closed. This decision of the Karnataka High Court was upheld by the Apex Court by dismissing the SLP of the Department as reported in 2008(223) ELT A170 (SC). 4.2 The appellant also relied upon CCE Tirupati V. Kores (India) Ltd. [2009 (245) E.L.T. 411 (22) S.T.R. 361 (Tribunal)] wherein it has been held as under: Refund of Cenvat/Modvat Unutilized credit l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
