TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (2) TMI 143
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... The appellant operated mills for manufacturing of 'grey yarn' and 'fabric' and a processing house that used to receive inputs from these mills. The mills were shut down in December 2002 owing to unviability at which point an amount of Rs. 35,23,640/- was available as credit in the RG-23A register. This was claimed as refund under rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002. Original authority rejected the claim on the ground that the said rule 5 is applicable only in relation to inputs procured for manufacture of goods that were exported, that the bar of limitation in filing the claim for refund under section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 would negate the claim and the failure to submit documents. 2. In appeal, the first appellate author....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 4. Accordingly, this proceeding is limited to determining whether the furnishing of stock register mandated by statute is sufficient evidence of credit having been properly availed. I earned Counsel cited the decision of the Tribunal in Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-II v. Shivkumar Ashohkumar [1997 (96) ELT 485 (Tribunal)] and Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-Il v. Doongursee Diamond Tools (P) Ltd [1997 (96) ELT 487 (Tribunal)] both of which were applications proposing reference on documentation required for sanction of refund and on the standard of compliance for determining the extend of technical or procedural contravention. 5. In Punjab Beverages (P) Ltd v, Collector o Central Excise, Chandigarh [2000 (118) ELT 506 (T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n Camlin Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-III [2003 (157) ELT445 (Tri-Mumbai)], it was held that :- '2. The appellants have clearly explained that original documents were destroyed in fire which took place in their factory. The fact of fire is not disputed. The adjudicating authority has noted that the D-3 declaration and the second gate pass i.e., gate pass on which the goods were cleared again after reprocessing on payment of duty is also attested and the veracity of the payment is also not questioned. It is not disputed that the goods initially cleared were returned for reprocessing and that, the invoice relied upon for claim for refund was the invoice covering the goods which had been cleared for the first time on paymen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r, is required to follow the directions in the remand order and not to go beyond that. The ground on which the Tribunal had remanded the matter to the Adjudicating Authority viz. unjust enrichment has been ignored by Commissioner (Appeals). Unfortunately the procedure which was not the subject matter of adjudication and appellate proceedings earlier has again become the subject matter of adjudication in appeal proceedings because during de novo adjudication the Adjudicating Authority and Commissioner (Appeals) went beyond the remand orders. It is more than 20 years since the mailer was taken up and at this stage it is not known that whether the appellants can establish that the goods were received in original packing and they were actually ....