TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal rules in favor of appellants, allowing withdrawal of unspent deposit from PLA account.</h1> <h3>WELSPUN INDIA LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, RAJKOT</h3> The Tribunal allowed the appeal in favor of the appellants, who were seeking to withdraw unspent deposit from their PLA account. The Tribunal held that ... - Issues involved: Rejection of request for withdrawal of unspent deposit in PLA account u/s area based Notification No. 39/2001-C.E.Summary:The appellants, engaged in manufacturing cotton terry towels and cotton bed sheets, accumulated a PLA balance of Rs. 2,19,94,621/- due to non-clearance of goods in the domestic market. Their request to withdraw the unspent deposit was rejected on the grounds that the duty originally paid had already been refunded once and could only be utilized for further duty payments u/s area based Notification No. 39/2001. The Tribunal considered the issue in light of previous judgments and held that the amount in PLA, though re-credited, belonged to the assessee and could be refunded if not utilized for duty payments.The Tribunal referred to the case of Jay Shree Tea & Industries Limited v. CCE, Kolkata, which established that the money in the PLA account belongs to the appellant and can be withdrawn without being subject to limitations or unjust enrichment. The Tribunal further cited cases like Bijalimoni Tea Estate v. CCE, Siliguri and CCE, Kolkata v. Rasoi Limited to support the principle that unutilized accumulated credit in PLA is not a refund of duty but equivalent to cash paid by the assessee, thus entitling them to claim it.Applying the legal precedent to the present case, the Tribunal concluded that the money in the PLA account was the property of the assessee, even if re-credited, as it was originally paid by them. The Notification allowing re-credit of duty did not change the ownership of the amount, and if the appellant could not utilize the credit for duty payments, the unspent balance could be refunded to them in cash. Therefore, the impugned order rejecting the withdrawal request was set aside, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellants.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
