TMI Blog2021 (7) TMI 953X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... BB of Central Excise Act, i.e. three months after the date of application till the date of grant of refund. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Excise Appeal No. 50790 of 2019 - FINAL ORDER No. 51674 /2021 - Dated:- 23-7-2021 - ANIL CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Shri Jitender Singh, Advocate for the appellant. Shri P Juneja, Authorised Representative for the Department ORDER The appellant is in appeal against rejection of their refund application for refund of Cenvat Credit lying in the books of accounts at the time of closure of factory being 28.6.2017. 2. The facts in brief are that the appellants are registered with erstwhile Central Excise department vide registration No. AAACN22111PEM003 and w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arance of finished goods; thus, the Cenvat Credit had been accumulated over a period of seven years and the same is not under dispute; that they had submitted all required documents while filing the refund claim; Show cause notice has not pointed out any deficiency. (ii) That the Adjudicating authority had time and again discussed the provisions of Section 11B of the Act as well as Rule 5 of the CCR, 2004 whereas the appellants have emphasized the interpretation of law by various courts; that the scope of Rule 5 ibid is confined to exportable goods and does not take care of domestic clearances. There is no possibility to utilize the credit or carry forward the same for future or to transfer the same to others; it needs to be considered t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it in the event of export of goods only and not in respect of domestic clearance. He also relied on the rulings of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Purvi Fabrics and Texturise (P) Ltd. vs CCE, Jaipur II as reported in [2017 (50) STR 120 (SC)] wherein the Final Order of this Tribunal No. 575/2004 NB(B) dated 16.7.2004 was upheld. 6. Being aggrieved, the appellant is before this Tribunal. The learned Counsel urges that in the case of Union of India vs. Slovak India Trading Company Pvt Ltd. (supra) Civil Appeal No. 5/2006 dated 7.7.2006, the Hon ble High Court of Karnataka in similar facts and circumstances decided the issue where the appellant was engaged in manufacture of sheets. Subsequently, they surrendered their registration ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is closed. The Hon ble High Court observed that the Tribunal noticed the various case laws in which similar claims were allowed. The Tribunal in view of the High Court decision is fully justified in ordering refund particularly in the light of closure of factory and in the light of the assessee going out of Modvat scheme. Accordingly, the Hon ble High Court answered the questions in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. 8. Being aggrieved in view of order of Hon ble Karnataka High Court, Revenue further preferred appeal before Hon ble Supreme Court. The Hon ble Supreme Court vide its judgement dated 7.7.2006 passed the following order: 4 . Admitted facts would reveal of a claim of cash refund and admitted facts would revea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , there is no manufacture in the light of closure of the Company. Therefore, Rule 5 is not available for the purpose of rejection as rightly ruled by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has noticed the various case laws in which similar claims were allowed. The Tribunal, in our view, is fully justified in ordering refund particularly in the light of the closure of the factory and in the light of the assessee coming out of the Modvat Scheme. In these circumstances, we answer all the three questions as framed in para 17 against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. (Emphasis supplied) 9. Learned Counsel also relies on other judgments referred to hereinabove which have been taken note of by Hon ble Supreme Court. Learned Counsel further sta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
