TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (7) TMI 953
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t vide registration No. AAACN22111PEM003 and were engaged in manufacturing of 'Micro Pores Surgical Tapes' and 'First Aid Bandages'(Medicated Adhesive Plasters) falling under Chapter Sub-Heading No. 30059060 and 30051090 respectively of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They were availing facility of Cenvat Credit under Rule 3 of the CCR, 2004. The appellants closed down their manufacturing activities and surrendered their Registration Certificate on 28.06.2017. 3. The appellants filed refund claim of unutilised Cenvat Credit in their account amounting to Rs. 15,34,137/- (also reflected in their ER-1 return for June, 2017) on 05.07.2017 under Notification No. 27/2012-CE(NT) dated 18.06.2012 as amended issued under Rule 5 of the Rules ibid....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ame to others; it needs to be considered that the duty element paid by the appellants to the treasury shall serve no useful purpose of the taxpayer in the event of closure of the unit or impossibility of adjustment. (iii) That on the similar issues, Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Union of India vs. Slovak India Trading Company Pvt Ltd. as reported in 2006 (201) ELT 559 (Kar) = 2008 (10) STR 101 (Kar) held that refund claim of unutilised Cenvat Credit was admissible in cash on case of closure of the unit. The above view was confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said case as reported in 2008 (223) ELT A-170 (SC). (iv) That on the similar issues the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Delhi had allowed refund ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ently, they surrendered their registration and filed refund application. During internal audit, it was noted that assessee has availed Cenvat Credit of raw materials received by them during the past on the strength of photocopies of the duplicate copy of invoices and the original copies of invoices were never produced. He however, stated that Cenvat Credit availed was irregular as there was neither production nor clearance of finished goods. The refund was rejected on the ground that there is no provision that under Rule 5 of CCR, 2002 with regard to such refund. Subsequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal and thereafter the Revenue carried out the appeal before Hon'ble Karnataka High Court and following questions were framed for decision....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... reveal of a claim of cash refund and admitted facts would reveal of rejection at the hands of the Assistant Commissioner and also the appellate authority. The Tribunal has chosen to allow the claim application on the ground that refund cannot be rejected when the assessee goes out of Modvat scheme or when the Company is closed. The argument is that there is no provision for refund in terms of Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002. Rule 5 reads as under: "Rule 5. Refund of CENVAT Credit: When any inputs are used in the final products which are cleared for export under bond or letter of undertaking, as the case may be, or used in the intermediate products cleared for export, the CENVAT credit in respect of the inputs so used shall be ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ave been taken note of by Hon'ble Supreme Court. Learned Counsel further stated that it is admitted fact that pursuant to closure of the factory on 28.6.2017, the appellant-assessee did not migrate to GST regime. Accordingly, he prays for allowing the appeal. 10. Learned Counsel also relies on the rulings of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Brand Equity Treaties Ltd. and others in WPC 11040/2018 being judgement dated 5.5.2020, in a bunch of writ petitions, wherein the Delhi High Court taking notice of the difficulties faced by several assessee who have migrated to GST regime, taking judicial notice that the petitioners had failed in their repeated attempt to file Form TRAN 1 within the stipulated time and/or extended time, whic....