2016 (6) TMI 316

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....l rate of 8% Ad-valorem under exemption Notification No. 29/2004-CE dated 09/7/2004. It is seen that there was another exemption Notification No. 30/2004-CE dated 09/7/2004, as amended, which allowed total exemption to the appellant's products, subject to the condition that no Cenvat credit of duty stands availed by them. The appellant continued to avail Notification No. 29/2004-CE and continued to take the Cenvat credit of duty paid on the inputs received by them till 01/4/2006, when they decided to shift to Notification No. 30/2004-CE. Accordingly, w.e.f. 01/4/2006 they started clearing their final product without payment of duty. 2. At the time of opting of Notification No. 30/2004-CE, the appellant was having certain inputs in their fa....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he Assessee to claim the refund of the accumulated Cenvat credit. His only reliance is to the provisions of Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, which he fairly admits that are applicable only in case of export of the final product. 5. As per the Cenvat Credit Scheme, credit of duty paid on the inputs and used in the manufacture of the final product is admissible for further use of the said credit for discharge of duty on the final product. There is no provision either in the Cenvat Credit Rules or under the Central Excise Act allowing cash refund of such accumulated credit. Such cash refunds of the credit, which is meant for only further utilization in discharge of the duty of excise on the final product, would enrich the Assessee unjustifi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Hira Cement reported in 2006 (194) E.L.T. 257 (S.C.) = 2007 (8) S.T.R. 96 (S.C.) that non-filing of an appeal against an order in any event would not be a ground for refusing to consider the matter on its own merit. Merely because in some cases revenue has not preferred appeal that does not operate as a bar for the revenue to prefer an appeal in another case where there is just cause for doing so or it is in public interest to do so or for a pronouncement by the higher Court when divergent views are expressed by the Tribunals or the High Courts as has been held in the case of C.K. Gangadharan vs. CIT, Cochin reported in 2008 (228) E.L.T. 497 (S.C.) = 2009 (16) S.T.R. 659 (S.C.). In Gauri Piasticulture (P) Ltd. (supra) except the claim being....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the disputed issue in favour of the Revenue, was duly aware of the Honble Karnataka High Court decision, as confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. As such, the Larger Bench decision stands given by considering the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court, and subsequent confirmation of the same by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Further, Tribunal being a creature of the Statute cannot go beyond the provisions of the Act and can't exercise power which are not available to it like writ jurisdiction powers. Judicial discipline requires us to follow the law declared by the Larger Benchs of the Tribunal. We also note that the insistence of the learned Advocate on the fact that appeal filed by the Revenue before Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of In....