TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (6) TMI 343
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dicating authority. The appellant had also filed a refund claim of the very same amount on the same ground under provisions of Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 which also was rejected by the adjudicating authority. Appellant preferred appeals before the first appellate authority against such an order. The first appellate authority after following the due process of law dismissed the appeal and upheld the orders of the adjudicating authority on the ground that provisions of refund of Cenvat Credit lying unutilized on account of closure of unit have not been probably made as there was no need for doing so as the duty paid on inputs used in the manufacturing of goods cleared on payment of duty stand included in the price of goods manufa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....223) ELT A170 (SC), (ix) Union of India Vs. Slovak India Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. - 2006 (201) ELT 559 (Kar.) 4. Ld. Departmental Representative on the other hand would submit that the issue of refund of unutilized / accumulated credit on closure of the unit has been decided by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Steel Strips Vs. CCE, Ludhiana - 2011 (269) ELT 257. It is his submission that the judgment of the Larger Bench is squarely covering the issue which is being agitated in this appeal. He would also submit that this bench in the case of M/s. Jai Elastics Pvt. Ltd. in final order no.A/10185/2014, dt.14.02.2014 following the judgment of the Larger Bench in the case of Steel Strips Vs. CCE, Ludh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Tribunal dated 9-8-2005 passed in Excise Appeal No. 934/2004 on the file of the Customs, Excise and service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore. (a) Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal is right in ordering for refund even if there is no provision in Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules 2002, to refund the unutilized Credit? (b) Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal is right in ordering for refund even if there is no production and there is no clearance of finished goods? (c) Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal is right in holding that respondent is entitled for refund even if it goes out of Modvat Scheme or Company is closed? 2. Respondent-company is enga....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and perused the material placed on record. 4. Admitted facts would reveal of a claim of cash refund and admitted facts would reveal of rejection at the hands of the Assistant Commissioner and also the appellate authority. The Tribunal has chosen to allow the claim application on the ground that refund cannot be rejected when the assessee goes out of Modvat scheme or when the Company is closed. The argument is that there is no provision for refund in terms of Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002. Rule 5 reads as under: Rule 5. Refund of CENVAT Credit: When any inputs are used in the final products which are cleared for....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ara 17 against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. 6. Ordered accordingly. No costs. 9. It is to be noted that the above referred judgment was followed by the Honble High Court of Bombay in the case of CCE, Nasik Vs. Jain Vanguard Polybutylene Ltd. (supra) wherein their Lordships held as under: JUDGMENT Perused Appeal. Heard Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Appellant-Revenue and Mr. Patil appearing for the Respondents. 2. The Tribunal has relied upon the judgment of the High Court of Karnataka, in the case of Union of India vs. Slovak India Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd., 2006 (201) ELT 559 (Kar.), wherein it is held that: 5. There is no express prohibiti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sed because the Learned Additional Solicitor General had conceded the correctness of the High Court's judgment. What was conceded by the Learned Additional Solicitor General was that the various judgments relied upon by the Court were not appealed against and not the correctness of the judgment of Karnataka High Court. The Apex Court in Birla Corporation Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, 2005 (186) ELT 266(SC) held that when question arising for consideration on facts almost identical to previous case, Revenue cannot be allowed to take different view. Following this principle, we cannot take any other view other than the one approved by the Apex Court, which came before it from the Karnataka High Court. 4. In the above view of this ....