TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (6) TMI 356
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and was availing the benefit of MODVAT credit under Rule 57 of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules 1944. They filed a refund claim for Rs. 1,81,23,725/- on 24.05.2010 with the Joint Commissioner pursuant to order no. 1/2010-CEx dated 08.04.2010 issued by the Hon'ble Settlement Commissioner. 3. The background of the case is that originally a show cause notice dated 21.03.2010 was issued to the appellant demanding an amount of Rs. 3,14,53,090/- on account of alleged unaccounted manufacture and clearance of goods without payment of excise duty. The respondent approached the Hon'ble Settlement Commission in January who, after following due process, issued its final order dated 08.04.2010 determining the duty liability at Rs. 2,36,75,539/- al....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Slovak India Trading Company Pvt Ltd., [2006 (201) ELT 559, (Kar)] in which the Hon'ble High Court expressed the view that Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 does not specifically prohibit refund of cenvat credit if the factory is closed and has allowed refund in that case. He further submits that this judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka was upheld by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Union of India Vs Slovak India Trading Co. Pvt Ltd., [2008 (223) ELT A170 (SC)]. He would further submit that the issue is well settled and the matter has been decided by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order as per the settled legal position. 6. Per contra, Learned DR asserts that a ba....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nvat Credit on account of the closure of manufacturing activities can be granted? (c) Whether what is observed in the order dated 25th January 2007 passed by the Apex Court in Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. CC 467 of 2007 (Union of India Vs Slovak India Trading Company Pvt Ltd.) can be read as a declaration of law under Article 141 of the Constitution of India?" These questions were answered by the Hon'ble Larger Bench of Bombay High Court in para 40 as follows: 40. As a result of the above discussion, we answer the questions of law framed above as (a) and (b) in the negative. They have to be answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. Questions (a) and (b) having been answered accordin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nment, by notification: Provided that no refund of credit shall be allowed if the manufacturer or provider of output service avails of drawback allowed under 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. Provided further that no credit of the additional duty leviable under sub-section (5) of section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, as amended by clause 72 of the Finance Bill, 2005, the clause which has, by virtue of the declaration made in the said Finance Bill, under the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1931, the force of law, shall be utilised for payment of service tax on any output service. Explanation: For the purpo....