2018 (9) TMI 1576

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Injection Moulding Machines falling under Chapter 84 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and had cleared the goods availing the benefit of Notification No.33/2012-CE after reversing an amount of 6%. As it appeared that the said amount of 6% was not required to be paid for availing the notification benefit, they filed a refund claim of Rs. 11,76,000/-. The original authority vide order dt. 12.7.2016 sanctioned refund to the extent of Rs. 5,20,800/- as cash refund and rejected the balance of Rs. 6,55,200/- on grounds of limitation. As the respondents had only paid an amount of 6% from the cenvat account, department preferred an appeal contending that refund of such amount should have been made only by way of recredit to their cenvat accou....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....direction of Commissioner (Appeals) therefore results in recovery with no option for refund. 4. On the other hand, Ld. A.R Shri B. Balamurugan supports the impugned order. 5. The disputed amount of Rs. 5,20,800/- has otherwise passed muster under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The original authority, while rejecting the claimed amount of Rs. 6,55,200/- on the grounds of limitation did not find any such fault with the impugned amount of Rs. 5,20,800/-. Neither has the amount been found hit by unjust enrichment as per the provisions of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 6. In the circumstances, when the Commissioner (Appeals) passed the impugned order on 30.11.2017, he should have taken note of the fact that the ers....