TMI Blog2022 (12) TMI 1189X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eeding in the appeal before the Tribunal the appellant was supposed to file a refund claim for refund of the amount of redemption fine. Whereas the appellant have taken the suo-moto re-credit as cenvat credit. As per the cenvat credit rules, an assessee can take the cenvat credit of any duty paid on the inputs used in the manufacture of final product cleared on payment of duty - In the present case the amount of redemption fine is not eligible as cenvat credit as the same is not a duty which was paid on any input received by the appellant. The right course of action about refund of the amount of bank guarantee adjusted against the redemption fine is to file a formal refund claim. The appellant is otherwise eligible to claim the refund of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was challenged by the appellant before the Commissioner(Appeals) who vide OIA dated 25.04.2006 partially allowed the appeal of the appellant to the extent that the redemption fine was reduced from Rs 3,75,000 to Rs 2,33,645/-.Being aggrieved by the said Order-in- Appeal appellant preferred an appeal before this Tribunal by Appeal No E/20470/2006. The tribunal vide final order no A/2177/WZB/AHD/2007 dated 17.08.2007 allowed the appeal of the appellant and set aside the order in appeal in its entirety. In pursuance to the order of the tribunal setting aside the demand the appellant availed the cenvat credit of Rs. 3,75,000/- being an amount of bank guarantee that was appropriated by the Assistant Commissioner by Order- in- Original dated 30.0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed order in appeal dated 23.11.2011 to the extent that the Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the demand for recovery of cenvat credit along with interest, the appellant filed the present appeal before this tribunal. 2. Shri Ishan Bhatt, Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant submits that the issue is no longer res-integra and stands decided in the favour of the assessee by multiple judgments including the judgment of this tribunal in their own case reported at 2004 ELT 285 (Tri. AHD). He placed reliance on the following judgments: Cosmo Films LtdVs. CCE 2014 (300) ELT 525(T) Shyam Textile Mills Vs. UOI - 2004 (6) TMI 590 ( Guj.) CCE. Vs. Vardhman Acrylics Ltd - 2013 (292) ELT 558 (T) Sharda Forging Sta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th the sides and perused the records. I find that the appellant have suo-moto re-credited an amount of Rs 3,75,000/- for which the appellant had given the bank guarantee at the time of provisional release of the seized goods. This amount was subsequently appropriated against confiscation of the seized goods ordered by the Assistant Commissioner vide OIO dated 30.09.2005 therefore, the amount of bank guarantee has been converted to redemption fine against the confiscation of the goods. On succeeding in the appeal before the Tribunal the appellant was supposed to file a refund claim for refund of the amount of redemption fine. Whereas the appellant have taken the suo-moto re-credit as cenvat credit. As per the cenvat credit rules, an assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
