TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 908X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hus, admittedly and apparently, appellant's case is not covered by the above said provisions. In the present case, admittedly, there is no manufacture subject to the closure of the company. Hence, the refund in furtherance of Rule 5 is not available. Since there is no provision under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 to permit refund of accumulated Cenvat Credit, where the manufacture activity has been stopped the adjudicating authorities below, have rightly rejected the claim - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - Appeal No. E/50484/2018 - EX(DB) - A/52271/2018-EX[DB] - Dated:- 14-6-2018 - Mr. V. Padmanabhan, Member (Technical) And Ms. Rachna Gupta, Member (Judicial) Represented by Shri Rupender Singh, Advocate for appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mpressed upon that the assessee must be given refund on unutilized Cenvat Credit if he has stopped manufacturing operations and they are not in a position to utilize the same. The appeal is, accordingly, prayed to be allowed. However, while justifying the challenged order, it is submitted by the D.R. that the Show Cause Notice dated 18.04.2004 was issued in furtherance of the application dated 15.01.2014, seeking refund of unutilized Cenvat Credit lying accumulated in their books of accounts. It is impressed upon that there is no provision which allows refund of accumulated credit lying unutilized except where the same has been accumulated on account of exports under bond. The refund has rightly been rejected. Appeal is, accordingly, prayed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed the manufacturing activity due to a fire accident in their premises and the refund has also been claimed solely on the said basis of the balance lying unutilized in their Cenvat Credit account. Thus, admittedly and apparently, appellant's case is not covered by the above said provisions. Though, the Appellant has relied upon M/s Slovak India Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. case, but as already held above, relevant provision, i.e., Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 refers only to manufacture. In the present case, admittedly, there is no manufacture subject to the closure of the company. Hence, the refund in furtherance of Rule 5 is not available. Accordingly, the present case is held to stand on a different footing. We draw our support ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty of the court either to enlarge the scope of legislation or the intention of the legislature, when the language of the provision is plain. The court cannot rewrite the legislation for the reason that it had no power to legislate. The court cannot add words to a statute or read words into it which are not there. The court cannot, on an assumption that there is a defect or an omission in the words used by the legislature. correct or make up assumed deficiency, when the words are clear and unambiguous. Courts have to decide what the law; is and not what it should be. 6. Since there is no provision under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 to permit refund of accumulated Cenvat Credit, where the manufacture activity has been stopped the adjudicat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
