TMI Blog2022 (12) TMI 1140X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f that amount would be tantamount to negating the correctness of that levy. CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 does not, for this reason, envisage any erosion of credit availed except by utilization towards duty liability under rule 3(4) thereof, by refund under rule 5 thereof or by recovery for ineligible availment under rule 14 thereof. To accede to the plea of the appellant herein would be to discard the leviability of duty/tax on manufacture/supply of goods/services procured by the appellant. The appeal lacks merit and, for that reason, is dismissed. - EXCISE APPEAL NO: 88069 OF 2019 - FINAL ORDER NO: A/86225/2022 - Dated:- 21-12-2022 - MR C J MATHEW, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) AND MR AJAY SHARMA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Ms Kiran Doiphode, Advocat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 11 to October 2011, along with interest, was discharged in November 2011. It is claimed by appellant that not only did the central excise authorities fail to restore the credit utilized for discharge of the duty liability at the end of respective months during the period but also issued notice dated 22nd August 2012 proposing to deny their claim filed on 20th June 2012 for release of cash and, instead, to allow restoration of credit. 3. The original authority sanctioned the entire amount and directed restoration of credit of the balance after adjusting ₹ 25,48,821/- towards dues pending for recovery as confirmed in another adjudication. The appellant carried the dispute to the first appellate authority contending that the delay in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e decision of the Hon ble High Court of Gujarat in Indsur Global Ltd v. Union of India [2014 (310) ELT 833 (Guj.)] had invalidated rule 8(3A) of Central Excise Rules, 2002. Reliance was also placed in the decision of the Tribunal in Solar Chemferts Pvt Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Thane I [2012 (276) ELT 273 (Tri.-Mumbai)] holding that remedying of default suffices to validate discharge of duty liability by debit in the CENVAT credit account for the intervening months. 6. Learned Authorised Representative submits that the request for re-credit was made only in January 2012 and application for refund preferred in June 2012. 7. It would appear to us that the primary issue to be resolved is the claim for monetization of the r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... culture P Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore [2019 (30) GSTL 224 (Bom)] answering reference of (a) Whether cash refund is permissible in terms of clause (c) to the proviso to section 11B(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 where an assessee is unable to utilize credit on inputs? (b) Whether by exercising power under Section 11B of the said Act of 1944, a refund of unutilised amount of Cenvat Credit on account of the closure of manufacturing activities can be granted? (c) Whether what is observed in the order dated 25th January, 2007 passed by the Apex Court in Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. CC 467 of 2007 (Union of India v. Slovak India Trading Company Pvt. Ltd.) can be read as a declaration of law unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n, it is necessary to examine the circumstances in which this claim has been made. Before so doing, the CENVAT credit and the implication of allowing the claim preferred by the appellant must also be subject to examination. 7. CENVAT credit, the accumulated pool of taxes and duties collected on supply of input services and inputs from an assessee, was in vogue till recently as the successor scheme of MODVAT credit for discharge of duty liability on outputs. The erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 2002 by rule 8(2) deemed goods to have been cleared under authority of law if discharged by payment or by utilisation of credit; this flows from the authority to levy and collect duty of excise in section 3 of Central Excise Act, 1944. 8. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s clear that legislative intent did not envisage the monetisation of CENVAT credit in the event of impossibility of utilisation. CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 is not an exemption scheme but a contrivance to ensure that the incidence of duty or tax is borne by the ultimate purchaser of goods or service in a chain. 10. If it were an exemption scheme, entitling assessees to refund of unused accumulated credit, the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 would have had the authority of section 5A of Central Excise Act, 1944 and section 93 of Finance Act, 1994. The Rules are issued under section 37 of Central Excise Act, 1944 and section 94 of Finance Act, 1994 to operationalize section 3 of the former and section 66 of the latter. 11. Moreover, the con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
