9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 974X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the quarter April 2008 to June 2008. However, Credit could not be utilized fully by the appellant due to closure of their unit on 29.08.2008. The appellant consequently filed a refund claim for an amount of Rs. 28,65,823/- on the CENVAT Credit lying unutilized. 2. A Show Cause Notice dated 11.09.2009 was issued to the appellant for the rejection of the claim of cash refund in respect of the unutilized CENVAT Credit as not being in order under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Original Authority confirmed the proposal in the Show Cause Notice and rejected the appeal. In appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) vide impugned Order dated 12.12.2012 rejected the appeal. Hence, the appellant is now before this forum. 3.1 Today when t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , Chennai-II - 2016-TIOL-1203-CESTAT-MAD. 4.1 On the other hand, Ld. AR Ms. T. Usha Devi appearing on behalf of the respondent supports the impugned Order. She draws our attention to the judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State Vs. Parmeshwaran Subramani - 2009 (242) E.L.T. 162 (S.C.) to contend that the courts should go into interpretation only when the language is not clear. 4.2 She further submits that Section 11B is very clear in its provisions as to who all can file claim for refund. 5. Heard both sides and have gone through the facts. 6. Ld. AR has been at pains to draw reference to the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgement in the case of Parmeshwaran Subramani (supra). No doubt, the Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down ver ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orities have followed the premise that there is no provision in law for such refunds. We are unable to fathom how the lower appellate authority has not seriously considered the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in M/s. Slovak India Trading Co. Ltd. (supra), which had unequivocally held that Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002 does not expressly prohibit refund of unutilized Credit where there is no manufacture in the light of closure of factory. As pointed out by the Ld. Consultant for the appellant, the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka had upheld the decision of the Tribunal reported in 2006 (205) E.L.T. 956 (Tri. - Bang.). On further appeal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide their order has also dismissed the SLP against the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
