2018 (4) TMI 156

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nt. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of goods falling under Chapter 84 of the First Schedule to the CETA, 1985 and are availing the facilities of CENVAT credit. The appellant had availed capital goods CENVAT credit on DG sets and Air Compressors of Rs. 9,94,214/-. These capital goods were shared and used by their tenant M/S, MHB Filters India located within their premises. On being pointed out, they had also reversed the amount in their Cenvat Credit account Vide Order-in-Original dt 24/11/2008, the credit was denied and appropriated. In appeal, the Commissioner(AppeaIs) had also vide OIA dt. 14/07/2009 had upheld the 010. Aggrieved by the OIA dt. 14/07/2009, the appellant fi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nt. He further submitted that there is no dispute that the appellant reversed the credit at the time of investigation, Therefore the refund cannot be rejected based on unjust enrichment. In support of this submission, he relied upon the following decisions:- i. CCE, Bangalore vs, Motorola India Pvt. Ltd. [2006(206) ELT 370 (Tri. Bang.)]   ii. Maheshraj Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Ahmedabad [2015(317) ELT 366 (Tri. Ahmd.)]    iii. SKF Technologies (l) Pvt. Ltd. vs. CC, Bangalore [2017(352) ELT 355 (Tri. Bang.)] iv. Wipro Fluid Power Ltdø vs. CC, Bangalore [2014(312) ELT 656 (Tri. Bang.)] v. CCE, Coimbatore vs. Pricol Ltd. [2015(320) ELT 703 (Mad.)] 5. Besides this, the ap....