TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 1317X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ODIPON LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER [ 2015 (8) TMI 1545 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] although the said order has been challenged by the Revenue before the Hon ble Apex Court but no stay has been granted by the Hon ble Apex Court. In that circumstances, relying on the decision in the case of PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., DELHI-I VERSUS SPACE TELELINK LTD. [ 2017 (3) TMI 1599 - DELHI HIGH COURT] , th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ember of the Bench has not signed the operative part of the order. Therefore, the Hon ble President exercising his powers confirmed under order no. 4/2009 dated 17.7.2009 as amended by order number 1/2010 dated 6.1.2010 approved for re-listing the matter on 1.2.2021. Therefore, this matter has come before us. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant was engaged in manufacturing activity ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ccount on closure of the factory. Aggrieved from the said order, the appellant is before us. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the case initially has been decided by Hon ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of UOI v Slovak India Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2006 (201) ELT 559 (Kar.) which has been upheld by the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court reported in 2008 ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Hon ble Apex Court and appeal has been admitted. Therefore, matter be kept pending till the decision of the Hon ble Apex Court is made. 5. Heard the parties. Considered the submission. 6. We find that the jurisdictional High Court has already held that on closure of the factory the assessees are entitled for refund claim lying unutilised in their Cenvat Credit Account. In case of Modipo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
