2017 (1) TMI 711

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....filed a refund claim on 25.09.2006 of Rs. 17,73,743.68 for the period from 08.04.05 to 14.05.06 on the ground that they have paid excess amount in terms of Rule 6 (3)(a)(viii)(4) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 as they should have reversed the amount equivalent to the cenvat credit used in the manufacture of exempted goods. A Show-Cause-Notice dated 29.10.07 was issued proposing to reject the refund claim. The Adjudicating Authority rejected the refund claim. By Order-in-Appeal dated 14.01.2010, the Commr. (Appeals) set aside the Adjudication order and remanded to the adjudicating authority to decide the matter afresh after observing the principles of natural justice. In de novo adjudication, the adjudicating authority sanctioned the refun....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ion of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Swastik Sanitary Wires Ltd. Vs. Union of India : 2013 (296) ELT 321 (Guj.). He also relied upon the following decisions : (i) Dy.Commr. of Central Excise, Chennai Vs. Dorcas Market Makers Pvt. Ltd. : 2015 (321) ELT 45 (Mad.) ; (ii) Hind Agro Industries Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Customs : 2008 (221) ELT 336 (Del.) ; (iii) Joshi Technologies International Vs. Union of India : 2016 (339) ELT 21 (Guj.). 5. The ld.A.R. on behalf of the Revenue reiterated the findings of the Commr. (Appeals). He also drew the attention of the Bench to the relevant portion of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mafatlal Industries Ltd. (supra). For proper appreciation of the case, the releva....