TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (5) TMI 1021
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....um falling under the Chapter 76 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1984. In pursuance of a show cause notice date d 29.08.2003, a demand of Rs. 2,04,554/- was raised against the appellant, out of which Rs. 1,76,516 was confirmed vide order dated 13.03.2005. During the process, the appellant debited an amount of Rs. 63,001/- under protest on 09.03.2005 in their RG-23A Part-II register which was appropriated in the adjudication order stated above. The appeal against the said order was also rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals). Thereafter, a further appeal before the Tribunal was preferred by the appellant and the same was allowed vide order dated 01.12.2005. In these circumstances, after final adjudication of the show cause notice proceedin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....002 against refund of Cenvat Credit in cash upon closure of factory, the Adjudicating Authority was justified in allowing cash refund of Cenvat Credit to appellant; and the Appellate Commissioner as also CESTAT have erred in holding that the refund in cash was not warranted in the facts of the present case.?" Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that in view of Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rule, 2002 there is no prohibition that the appellant will not be entitled to the payment of refund in cash, more particularly when their factory has already been closed and there is no manufacturing activities in the process. Learned counsel further relies upon the judgment in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Ranchi Vs. Ashok ARC r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d in the final products which are cleared for export under bond or letter of undertaking, as the case may be, or used in the intemediate products cleared for export, the CENVAT credit in respect of the inputs so used shall be allowed to be utilized by the manufacturer towards payment of duty of excise on any final products cleared for home concumption or for export on payment of duty and where for any reason such adjustment is not possible, the manufacturer shall be allowed refund of such amount subject to such safeguards, conditions and limitations as may be specified by the Central Government by notification: Provided that no refund of credit shall be allowed if the manufacturer avails of drawback allowed under the Customs and Central ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted 30th April, 2002. The stand of the learned Counsel for the Revenue that the amount should have been adjusted in RG-23A Part-II account can not be accepted, there being no such RG-23 Part- II account available respect of the finished goods. Similar issue was decided by Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Deccan Sales Corporation, , as noticed by the CEGA Tribunal and, in fact, no credit account is being maintained by the respondent on account of raising of exemption limit. As the respondent will not be in a position to utilise the credit, the CEGA Tribunal has rightly held that the Revenue should refund the amount to the respondent in cash. There being no substantial question of law, raised for reference, we are not inclined to ask ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Customs and Central Excise. Duties Drawback Rules, 1995, or claims a rebate of duty under the Central Excise Rules, 2002, in respect of such duty. 5. There is no express prohibition in terms of Rule 5. Even otherwise, it refers to a manufacturer as we see from Rule 5 itself. Admittedly, in the case on hand, there is no manufacture in the light of closure of the Company. Therefore, Rule 5 is not available for the purpose of rejection as rightly ruled by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has noticed various case laws in which similar claims were allowed. The Tribunal, in our view, is fully justified in ordering refund particularly in the light of the closure of the factory and in the light of the assessee coming out of the Modvat Scheme. In t....