TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (8) TMI 330
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tral Excise Duty under sub-heading 5703.90 of the Tariff. The Additional Commissioner vide order-in-original dated 31-7-2000 passed in respect of the show cause notice dated 29-9-98 issued to them, partially dropped the proceedings. However, on a review appeal being filed by the Department against the Additional Commissioner's order, the Commissioner, Central Excise (Appeals), vide order-in-appeal No. 144/C.E./Appl/Jal/2004 dated 23-3-2004 allowed the Revenue's appeal against the Additional Commissioner's order dated 31-7-2000. The respondent filed an appeal before the Tribunal alongwith stay application and the Tribunal vide stay order No. S/1297/04-NB (SM) dated 24-11-04 directed the respondent for pre-deposit of Rs. 50,000/- under Sectio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Commissioner's order dated 13-11-06 sanctioning the refund claim in cash and filed the review appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) vide order-in-appeal No. 213/C.E./Appl/Jal/2008 dated 24-4-2008 dismissed the department's appeal holding that in this case, the refund has been rightly given to the respondent in cash, as at that time, the respondent had already surrendered their Central Excise registration. It is against this order of the Commissioner (Appeals) that the present appeal has been filed by the revenue. 2.Heard both the sides. 2.1 Heard Shri S.K. Bhaskar, the learned Representative, assailed the impugned order reiterating the grounds of appeal in the Revenue's appeal. He pleaded that when the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ported in 2008 (226) E.L.T. 354 (Tri. - Mumbai). He emphasized that since by the time, the matter was decided partially in favour of the respondent, as a result of which some amount of duty initially paid through Cenvat credit account became refundable, the respondent's factory had closed down and even the registration certificate had been surrendered, the amount of refund was required to be sanctioned in cash as they were not in a position to utilize the Cenvat credit if the amount had been refunded to them through Cenvat credit. He, therefore, pleaded that there is no infirmity in the impugned order. 3. I have carefully considered the submission from both the sides and perused the records. The only point of dispute in this case is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....duty was through the Modvat/Cenvat credit account and the assessee's factory had to closed down and there was no Cenvat credit account into which the refund amount could be credited. Same view has been taken by the Tribunal in the cases of Tablets India Ltd. v. CCE, Pondicherry reported in 2006 (197) E.L.T. 449 (Tri.- Chennai) = 2008 (9) S.T.R. 313 (T) and also in the case of CCE, Ahmedabad-I v. Arcoy Industries reported in 2004 (170) E.L.T. 507 (Tri. - Mumbai). In the case of Gauri Plasticulture (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Indore (supra) cited by the learned Departmental Representative, it is seen that the Tribunal's decision is based on the fact that while the Central excise registration certificate was surrendered by the assessee in September 2000,....