2017 (12) TMI 1160

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. 2. The facts of the case are that the Appellant were engaged in manufacture of Textile articles and were also exporting the finished goods under Bond/Letter of Undertaking. As they were not in a position to utilize the credit therefore an amount of Rs. 13,19,885/- got accumulated in their cenvat credit account. Pursuant to closure of the Appellant's Unit, they had filed refund claim of Modvat/ Cenvat in terms of Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 read with Notification No. 11/2002 CE (NT) dt. 01.03.2002 which was lying in their credit account. The Appellant were served show cause notice dt. 19.03.2008 wherein it was proposed to reject the claim on the ground that the refund of credit is a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nt (supra). Hence the Larger bench judgment cannot be relied upon. 4. On the other hand, Shri S. J. Sahu, Ld. Assistant Commissioner (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. 5. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides and perused the records. I find that the revenue has relied upon the Larger bench judgment in case of Gauri Plasticulture (P) Ltd. Vs. CCE, Indore - 2006 (202) ELT 199 (TRI- LB). However, I find that the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in case of M/s Slovak India (supra) was cited before the Larger Bench of Tribunal in case of M/s Gauri Plasticulture - 2006 (202) ELT 199, but the same was not discussed while rendering the Larger Bench jud....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... order, the statement of the Learned Additional Solicitor General was recorded by the Apex Court, who had conceded before the Apex Court that the various judgments relied upon by the Karnataka High Court were not appealed against by the Revenue. Notwithstanding this concession, it is not possible to say that the S.L.P was dismissed in view of the concession given by the Additional Solicitor General. No concession was given with regard to the correctness of the judgment of Karnataka High Court. This judgment was confirmed by the Apex Court on its own merits for the reasons stated therein. The Tribunal was wrong in observing that the S.L.P was dismissed because the Learned Additional Solicitor General had conceded the correctness of the High ....