2018 (7) TMI 424

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....that their manufactured goods clearance had exceeded the exemption limit provided in the small scale Notification. 2. Subsequently at the intervention of the department, it was found that they had exceeded the exemption clearance limit and are liable to pay duty to the tune of Rs. 10,56,475.00. Accepting the mistake on their behalf they paid the said duty vide TR-6 Challan dated 25.03.2006. Thereafter the matter was taken up for adjudication by the original adjudicating authority who confirmed the demand already deposited by them, but did not impose any penalty. 3. The said order of the original adjudicating authority was appealed against by the appellant before Commissioner(Appeals) to stress upon the issue of availability of Cenvat Cred....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....missioner(Appeals) rejected the same on the ground that the duty has already been paid in cash, which stands appropriated by the department and as such no refund would be admissible. The said order of Commissioner(Appeals) is impugned before us. 9. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides and have gone through the entire developments of the case. There is no dispute about the fact that the appellant, on account of crossing the exemption limit available in terms of small scale Notification, is required to pay the duty. It is seen that after the initial threshold exemption in terms of small scale exemption Notification No.8/2003, the assessee was entitled to concessional rate of duty as also to the Cenvat credit of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....fact cannot be adopted as a reason for denial of refund to the assessee. As regards the reasoning of Commissioner(Appeals), though we agree that the refund of excess accumulated credit, at the time of closure of the factory, is not permissible under any rule or section of the Rules or the Act, but we note that the appellant had been contesting about the availability of the credit right from the beginning, when they discharged their duty liability in cash. The relief came to them only by way of an order passed by Commissioner(Appeals). By that time they had already deposited the duty in cash and subsequent to the order of the appellate authority, claimed the cash refund and adjustment of the duty through the credit. If, after crossing the e....