2017 (1) TMI 288

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t of duty on the final product. From March 2000, Tooth powder was exempted from payment of duty vide Notification No. 6/2000-CE dated 1-3-2000 and credit was availed by the appellant on input used in the manufacture of such goods. The Range Superintendent vide letter dated 9-3-2000 asked the appellant to reverse the modvat credit in respect of the input lying in stock, contained in stock of work in progress as on 1-3-2000. The appellant paid an amount of Rs. 18,49,458/- through PLA on 27-3-2000 'under protest' in terms of Rule 233B of Central Excise Rules, 1944. Subsequently, the appellant have written various letters in this regard wherein they informed the Dy. Commissioner that the entire credit of input which was used in the manufact....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed by the Larger Bench of this Tribunal in case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Rajkot Vs: Ashok Iron & Steel Fabrication [2002(140) ELT 277(Tri. LB)] which was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2003(156) ELT A 212(SC)]. He further submits that since amount was paid / reversed by the appellant under protest, the Revenue should have issued the show cause notice for confirmation, however no show cause notice was issued. Therefore there is no reason for rejection of refund claim as no amount stands confirmed under an adjudication proceedings. He submits that judgment in case of M/s. Albert David Ltd(supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case. The present case is covered by the decision of Ashok Iron and Stee....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... respect of input, finished goods and work in progress lying on the date of exemption notification i.e. 29-2-2000. The Cenvat credit was availed by the appellant during the period when the final, product i.e. Tooth powder was dutiable therefore the availment of credit was legally permissible. No provision in the Cenvat credit rules existed which provides for reversal of credit which was legally availed in case of final product gets exempted after availing the credit. This issue is no more res integra particularly as per the judgments of five member larger bench of this Tribunal in case of Ashok Iron and Steel (supra) which was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The entire basis of the lower authorities rejection of fund claim is that ....