2020 (9) TMI 301

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the case are that M/s Scot Innovations Wires & Cables Pvt. Limited is registered with Central Excise Department vide Central Excise Registration No. AAKCS3140EEM001 and engaged in the manufacture of power control cable under Chapter Heading 8544 1190. The appellant vide letter dated 23.06.2015 requested to transfer the unutilised credit of Rs. 48,29,318/- as they want to close the Delhi unit & merge with its Baddi unit. The appellant had deposited the 43 purchase bills pertaining to which the cenvat credit was taken and transfer was sought. 3. The appellant informed that the Baddi Unit was registered with the Department on 05.05.2015 and had not taken cenvat credit as they were availing Area Based Exemption during the period prior to 05....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....was clearing their entire production under the exemption notification they were not entitled to avail cenvat credit in terms of Rule 6(1) and (2) of Cenvat Credit Rules. Accordingly, he upheld the disallowance of cenvat credit. As regards penalty imposed under Rule 15 read with Section 11AC of the Act, he was pleased to set aside the penalty observing that there is no suppression or misinformation with the Department. Being aggrieved the appellant in appeal before this Tribunal. 6. As per grounds of appeal, it is urged that the impugned order is contrary to facts and attendant provisions of law and if permitted to stand would result in grave miscarriage of justice. Further it is urged that the appellant had submitted the photocopy of ER-....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....edit account, in cash, and in this regard he relied upon the judgments of this Tribunal in CCE, Ahmedabad-I vs. Arcoy Industries -2004 (170) ELT 507 (Tri. Mum.) and Supreme Industries Ltd. vs. CCE, Mumbai-V in 2008 (226) ELT 354 (Tri. Mumbai). The appellant‟s factory was closed down, the amount of refund was required to be sanctioned in cash as they were not in a position to utilise the cenvat credit, if the amount is refunded to them through cenvat credit. Appellant relied on the decision of CCE, Jalandhar vs. Kochar Sung-up Acrylic Ltd. -2010 (259) ELT 713 (T). 8. There is no dispute that the appellant is claiming refund of excise duty paid on inputs and the goods were cleared under the exemption to mega power projects, wherein e....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....llant exported the goods under rebate and not under bond. Further the Tribunal in CCE, Rohtak vs. Mittal International (supra) held that "refund of cenvat / modvat of AED (T&TA) paid on inputs used in goods exported under rebate, issue settled by Tribunal in 2007 (213) ELT 117, held that final product not subject to AED (T&TA) and rebate claim being confined to basic excise duty, refund of unutilised credit of additional excise duty admissible. Appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed by High court under Rule 5 of CCR, 2002/2004. It is further submitted that the claim of refund is not subjected to limitation under Section 11B as it is the claim of refund of unutilised credit. 9. The Hon‟ble Karnataka High Court in UoI vs. Slovak I....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lant that the reason for denial of credit by the adjudicating authority was not justified. This finding is evident from para 11 of the impugned order. Thereafter, the appellate authority erred and disallowed the cenvat credit under Rule 6(1) & (2) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, observing that appellant was clearing their entire production under exemption Notification No. 12/2012-CE, thus they could not have availed input credit. He therefore, prays for allowing of the appeal. 11. Learned Authorised Representative Ms. Tamanna Alam for Revenue opposes the appeal and rely upon the findings in the impugned order. She further reiterated that under the facts and circumstances appellant is not entitled to cash refund of unutilised cenvat credit.....