9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 292X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Representative) appearing for the Revenue. 3. The undisputed facts inter alia are that the appellant was engaged in the manufacture of insecticides and MS Ingots; that they filed a refund claim for Rs. 24,59,328/- on 04.06.2012 relating to the accumulated CENVAT Credit lying unutilized in their CENVAT account, on account of closing down of their manufacturing operations; that a Show Cause Notice dated 22.08.2012 was issued proposing the deny the refund inter alia on the ground that the reasons for claiming the refund of accumulated credit was not covered under any category falling under the provisions of Section 11B ibid. read with Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 ('CCR' for short); that vide Order-in-Original No. 213/2012 (R) date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a situation where the manufacturing unit is closed down. There is also no doubt that Rule 5 does not specifically prohibit refund when a unit closes down; so, what is not there can never be read into a provision while strictly adhering to the legislative intention as to not read something into a provision. Rule 5, admittedly, does not specifically prohibit refund in a situation where a manufacturing unit closes down and the credit available could not get utilized. Hence, the legislative intention cannot be applied to the advantage of the Revenue especially when the tax suffered amount in the form of CENVAT Credit is lying with the Revenue. The authority to collect tax has to be applied in entirety, keeping in mind also the proviso to sub-se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on facts but no authority has been made. Full Bench decision of the Tribunal has to be followed. 14. Hence, we answer the issue in favour of assessee against the department. 15. The appeal is allowed. The view of Karnataka High Court which has been confirmed by the Supreme Court is required to be approved and the same is approved." (Emphasized in bold, for clarity) 6.2 In view of the above, I am of the opinion that the lis in the case on hand has already been settled by the Hon'ble High Courts and hence, the denial of refund being incorrect, cannot be sustained. 7. The impugned order is therefore set aside, the Adjudicating Authority is directed to work out and refund in accordance with law, with consequential benefits, if any, as pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
