TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 1266X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ishnan, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri G.R. Singh, DR, for the Respondent. ORDER Denial of refund of Cenvat credit on welding electrodes by the authorities below, is the subject-matter of dispute, in the present appeal. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows :- 3. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of sugar and molasses falling under Chapter 17 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellants availed Cenvat credit of Central Excise duty paid on welding electrodes by treating the same as inputs . Taking of Cenvat credit on welding electrodes was disputed by the Central Excise Department. In appeals for the earlier period, this Tribunal took a view vide orders dated 13-6-20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were upheld in the impugned order by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals). Thus, this present appeals before the Tribunal. 6. Heard ld. Counsels Shri R. Krishnan for the appellant and Shri G.R. Singh, ld. DR for the respondent. 7. The submissions of the ld. Advocate are that the interim order dated 23rd December, 2005 of the Hon ble Allahabad High Court relied upon in the adjudication order, has application only to the appeals, pending before the Hon ble High Court. He further submits that the principles of res judicata, does not apply to the taxing statute. The period for which the refund claim has been lodged, is not covered in the dispute pending before the Hon ble High Court, and as such the interim order dated 23rd December, 2005 canno ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... input for the purpose of taking Cenvat credit of the Central Excise duty paid thereon. 10. Heard the ld. Counsels for both the sides and perused the records. 11. It is an admitted fact that the appellant has filed the instant refund claim in respect of disputed goods i.e. welding electrodes, on the basis of the favourable decision by this Tribunal in the appellant s own case vide order dated 23rd March, 2013. The amount in question, has been paid by the appellant under protest and relates to a subsequent period, which is not under dispute before the Hon ble Allahabad High Court. In my view, the appellant s refund claim cannot be denied, relying upon the interim order of the Hon ble Allahabad High Court, relating to different period. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
