9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 792X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... period April, 2004 to June 2004 and 1.7.04 to 31.7.04 which resulted in accumulation of Cenvat Credit in their account which cannot be utilized by them. Therefore, the appellant filed refund claim under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Initially the refund claim was sanctioned by the adjudicating authority but said order carried out before learned Commissioner (Appeals) who held that refund claim is not admissible to the appellants on the ground that the appellant is maintaining separate account for basic excise duty and additional excise duty on Textile and Textile articles. And there is an accumulation of AED and (T & TA) and for that refund claim is not admissible. It is also held that in terms of notification No. 11/2002 CE (NT) dat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arlier period, wherein the Tribunal held as under: "After hearing both the sides, I find that the appellant is an exporter of yarn and were entitled to the refund of CENVAT credit availed by them in respect of inputs used in the manufacture of export of yarn, in terms of the provisions of Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. Their application for refund of the said amount was sanctioned by the Asst. Commissioner allowing the refund of Rs. 87,10,153/-, which was to be given to them in cash. As a result, they were required to make debit entries in their CENVAT credit accounts. 2. It is seen that the appellants were maintaining separate credit accounts in respect of Basic Excise Duty (BED) as also in respect of Additional Excise Duty (AED) l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d have debited the BED account each time for payment of AED(T&TA) on each transaction and would thereby have saved their credit under the head of AED(T&TA), I find that they have not done so and maintained the BED account and AED (T&TA) account separately. Refund cannot be granted on assumptions and presumptions. Thus the adjudicating authority has rightly confirmed the demand against the appellants. Accordingly, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order." 6. It is seen from the above that Commissioner (Appeals) is otherwise not opposed to the idea of maintenance of a common CENVAT credit account of BED as also AED. If the appellant would have maintained a common account, they would have debited the said common account for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bunal in the case of CCE, Jaipur II vs. Bhilwara Spinners Ltd. [2008 (226) ELT 222 (Tri-Del)] wherein this Tribunal has held as under: 7. Notification No. 11/2002-C.E. (N.T.), dated 1-3-2002 issued under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 provides a declaration in the refund claim application that no separate claim for rebate of duties in respect of excisable goods used in the manufacture of the goods covered by this application or will be made under the Customs and Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules, 1971 or under claim for rebate under the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The Tribunal in the case of Ispat Industries Limited (supra) held that the appellant is eligible to refund of accumulated Cenvat credit of duty paid on the inputs against ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
