9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 1165X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Briefly stated that facts of the case are that the Assessee is engaged in the manufacture of Peanut Butter which is exempted fully from excise duty by virtue of Notification No.3/2006-Central Excise dated 1.3.2006. They have availed CENVAT credit on inputs/packing materials during the period August 2010 to July 2011 amounting to Rs. 29,55,530/-. They have exported the said goods claiming rebate of duty paid on inputs under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. Alleging that the CENVAT credit availed on the inputs/packing materials not eligible, show cause notice was issued to them for recovery of the said credit on 06.9.2011 with interest and penalty. On adjudication, the demand was confirmed with interest and penalty of equal amount und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er, the principle is squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. Heard both sides and perused the record. This Tribunal in similar circumstances, considered the plea of the Appellant for cash refund of the accumulated credit availed on export of finished products against claim of rebate and held that since credit on input is not admissible, accordingly cash refund is also not admissible. The Tribunal observed at Para 6 and 7 as follows: "6. After hearing both sides at length and perusal of records, it is observed that the appellant has received duty paid inputs used in the manufacture of fully exempted product Peanut Butter which is exported out of India. Appellant is seeking refund of such duty paid inputs either ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 is admissible because no credit accumulation is possible in view of the provisions of Rule 6(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules. So far as reliance of the appellant upon their own judgment dated 25-11-2011 in CESTAT in Appeal No.1222-1224 is concerned, it is observed from para 4 of the said order that refund of credit was allowed when the unit was still working under 100% EOU category and was not operating under DTA category. Therefore, the facts of that case and the period is different than the facts and period of the present proceedings. Appellant has also taken in the ground of appeal that rejecting their refund claim is against the policy of the Central Government while giving several incentives and benefits ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... herefore, to ascertain reversal of the same amount which they are required to reverse being disallowed by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals), the matter needs to be remanded to the adjudicating authority for the purpose of verification. As far as interest on the CENVAT credit availed is concerned I find that the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) while confirming the demand of Rs. 29,55,530/- observed that the Appellant had exported the exempted goods under claim of rebate of the duty paid on inputs and the present credit on inputs are maintained in their RG-23 A Part II account, is only for the purpose of claiming rebate on inputs used in the manufacture of finished goods exported against rebate claim. Thus, in these circumstances, I find justificatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
