9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 222X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant are engaged in the manufacture of petroleum products and availed cenvat credit on the inputs used in the manufacture of final products. During the course of manufacture of final products, Sulphur, a by-product emerges which were cleared by the appellant at NIL rate of duty. Consequently, as per the provisions of Rule 6(3)(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 and Rule 57CC / 57AD(2)(b) of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944, they reversed 8% of the sale value of Sulphur by debiting their cenvat credit account. Later, the Tribunal in the case of IOC Ltd. Vs. CCE, Lucknow [2003(108) ECR 578] held that Sulphur being a by-product, the appellant is entitled to claim benefit o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the refund claim to address the issue of unjust enrichment. It is his contention that the findings of the authorities below on the issue of non-reversal of cenvat credit is travelling beyond the scope of the remand order; hence not sustainable. Also, the learned advocate has categorically submitted that after filing the refund claim on 29.09.2003 and subsequent personal hearing, they have filed a letter dated 21.10.2004 informing the Department that they reversed an amount of Rs.5,27,132/- debiting their cenvat credit vide Entry No.650 dated 06.10.2004 in respect of chemicals used in Sulphur recovery unit for the period January 2002 to September 2004. It is his contention that this fact has been brought to the notice of the adjudicating aut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e learned Commissioner(Appeals). 5. Heard both sides and perused the records. 6. The short issue involved in the present appeal for consideration is whether the refund claim of Rs.1,17,14,846/- filed by the appellant pursuant to the order of this Tribunal on merit, is admissible to the appellant. 7. We find that the refund claim was filed by the appellant subsequent to the decision of this Tribunal in the case of IOC Ltd. (supra), whereby this Tribunal has observed that Sulphur being a by-product emerges during the course of manufacture of final product, cannot be subjected to Rule 6(3)(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 and erstwhile Rule 57CC / 57AD(2)(b) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. On rejection of the refund claim, the matter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at amount reversed under Rule 6(3) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 would not come under the procedure prescribed under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Consequently, the principles of unjust enrichment could not be made applicable for the payment made under Rule 6(3)(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 and Rule 57CC / 57AD(2)(b) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Also on scrutiny of the relevant sample invoices for Sulphur for the period in dispute, it is noticed that the amount of 8% had not been recovered by the appellant from their customers. No contrary evidence has been referred to by the authorities below to rebut the said claim of the appellant. 9. In the result, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed wit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
