2008 (8) TMI 588

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....for the Revenue and Mr. V.J. Sankaram, the learned Advocate, appeared for the respondent. 3. The issue is like this. The respondents took Cenvat credit on capital goods to the extent of Rs. 15,03,931/-. Later they claimed refund of the amount which was in their RG 23C Part I/RG 23A Part II accounts on the ground that the factory is closed and they would not be in a position to utilize the balance in the said account. The lower authority rejected the refund claim on the ground that if the refund is granted it would amount to non-payment of duty on the capital goods which is not permissible and further there is no provision in the Cenvat Rules to refund the unutilized credit in terms of Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules. On these grou....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....emsp;The learned Advocate for the respondents also had relied on several case-laws to hold that the amount which is lying in the Cenvat credit account and which cannot be utilized on account of the closure of the factory is liable to be refunded. 6. On a very careful consideration of the entire issue, we find there is plethora of case-laws which hold that when the amount lying in the Cenvat account cannot be utilized then the assessees are entitled for cash refund. The following are the relevant citations : (a)     Union of India v. Slovak India Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. - 2006 (201) E.L.T. 559 (Kar.) = 2008 (10) S.T.R. 101 (Kar.) (b)     Kundalia Industries v. CCE, Delhi-I - 2006 (196) E.L.....