AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (4) TMI 1155
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dditional grounds taken by the Revenue before the Id. Commissioner (Appeals). 2. The facts of the case are that appellant was engaged in the manufacture of paper and paper products. They closed their unit on 12.04.2015 and surrendered their Central Excise registration certificate on 31.12.2015. Thereafter, the appellant filed refund claim of unutilised Cenvat credit lying in their Cenvat account as on closure of their factory and surrendering their registration. The said refund claim was sanctioned by the adjudicating authority after issuance of show cause notice. The said order was challenged before the Id. Commissioner (Appeals) who sent the matter back to the adjudicating authority on the ground that Revenue has submitted additional g....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... been raised by the Revenue for placing additional evidence before the Id. Commissioner (Appeals). Therefore, on the said ground, Commissioner (Appeals) cannot remand the matter to the adjudicating authority. 5. Heard the parties. On the preliminary objection raised by Ida AR, as per Rule 5 (1), the grounds where the additional evidence admissible before the appellate authority, are as follows:- (a) Where the adjudicating authority has refused to admit the evidence which ought to have been admitted. - Admittedly, this is not a case. (b)Where the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from producing the evidence which he was called upon to produce by adjudicating authority. - Admittedly, this is also not a case here....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ithdrew the SLP. Further, the review appeal against the order was also set- aside by the Hon'ble High Court. He further submitted that the sole ground to deny refund to the appellant is based on the decision of Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Steel Strips vs. CCE, Ludhiana - 2011 (269) ELT 257 (Tri. LB). It is his submission that the issue before the larger bench was somewhat different as in that case the assessee was not able to utilise the Cenvat credit lying unutilised in their Cenvat account therefore, they claimed refund of unutilised Cenvat credit and in that case, there was no closure of the unit or surrender of registration certificate. Therefore, the said decision is not applicable to the facts of this case. He also....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed the record. We find that the facts of the case are that appellant were manufacturing paper and paper products. They were availing Cenvat credit on inputs clearing the final products on payment of duty. Appellant also closed their factory and surrendered their Central Excise registration. As there was certain Cenvat credit lying unutilised in their Cenvat account, they filed refund claim. The refund claim was sanctioned to the appellant on closure of the factory, relying the decision of Slovak India Trading Company Pvt. Limited (supra). The dispute arose between the parties on the ground that the activity undertaken by the appellant does not amount to manufacture, therefore they are not entitled to avail Cenvat credit. Consequently, they ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....refore, the facts of said case are not applicable to the facts of this case. Moreover, similar facts were there in the case of Purvi Fabrics & Texturise (P) Limited (supra) wherein the unit of the assessee was lying closed but assessee did not surrender their registration certificate nor closed their business. In that circumstance the facts of this case are not applicable to the facts of this case. The facts in the case of Slovak India Trading Company Pvt. Limited (supra) are identical to the facts of case hand. Moreover, the facts in the case of CCE, Nasik vs. Jain Vanguard Polybutlene Limited - 2010 (256) ELT 523 (Bom.) are also similar to the facts of this case. Further, in the case of We/cure Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Limited (supra), t....