TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (8) TMI 701
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../s. RSWM Limited were availing cenvat credit on Polyester/Viscose/Arylic Fibres used in the manufacture of their final products. Both the inputs as well as final products of the unit were chargeable to Additional Excise Duty (Textile & Textile Articles) under Additional Duties of Excise (Textile & Textile Articles) Act 1978, till 08.07.2004, and later vide Notification No.31/2004-CE dated 09.07.2004, the said goods were exempted from AED (TTA) w.e.f. 09.07.2004. On the date of exemption, the respondent had a balance of AED (T & TA) of Rs. 27,25,433/-. 2.1 In March, 2005, the respondent debited Rs. 2,31,85,989/- from their Cenvat Credit Account with remark -- "Cenvat Credit reversed by us vide notification No.41/2001 dated 26.06.2001", and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....05.2012 on merits as well as on limitation. The appeal filed by the appellant herein was also rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals-I) vide order-in-appeal no.300(SLM)CE/JPR/2015 dated 30.04.2015. 2.4 On their appeal, this Tribunal in Final Order No.52012/2016 dated 2.6.2016 has held that they were in principle eligible for refund of AED(T&TA) under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, however, the claim should be restricted to AED(T&TA) re-entered in the credit account by them in November, 2010, and falling under eligibility as per Rule 5 of the Rules. The matter was remanded to the Original Authority for determination of the eligible amount. 2.5 The Original Authority vide Order-in-Original No.91/Refund/16 dated 14.10.2016, sanctioned r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he remand order of this Tribunal being Final Order dated 2.6.2016, wherein it has been observed :- "Considering the above discussion and analysis, I find that the appellant is in principle eligible for refund of AED(T&TA) under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. However, considering the facts of the case and the applicability of time limit for such claim, as discussed above, the claim shall be restricted to the AED(T&TA) re-entered in the cenvat credit account by the appellant in November, 2010 and falling under the eligibility under Rule 5. As such the matter has to go back to the Original Authority to examine the eligible amount of refund in terms of above findings. The appellants shall file all the required details and documents ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... for export when such credit cannot be used for payment of duty of excise on any final product cleared for home consumption or for export on payment of duty. The eligibility of the impugned cliaim could be verified under Rule 5 of the Rules only after verification of the relevant records and details to be submitted by the respondent. It is evident that the adjudicating authority did not call for the records to compute the AED (T&TA) and simply sanctioned the credit taken in November, 2010. If no verification was required, Hon'ble CESTAT would have done that at that stage itself. It was after the passing of the order, the departmental authorities called for the relevant records which were submitted by the respondent vide letter dated 25.11.2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... directions of the Hon'ble Tribunal were not followed by the lower authority. Moreover, the respondent has nowhere contested the outcome of the verification as contained in the appeal of the department that inputs involving AED( T& TA) to the extent of Rs. 8,84,762/- have been used in manufacture of final products cleared in domestic market. Thus out of their claim of refund of Rs. 22,54,910/-, they were entitled to refund of Rs. 13,70,148/- on account of AED (T&TA) involved on inputs used in manufacture of goods exported under Rule 5 of the Rules and the refund amount of Rs. 8,84,762/- was erroneously granted to them vide impugned order. 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant/assessee is in appeal. 5. Ld. Counsel for the appellant urges that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....roportionate calculation of refundable amount, being proportionate export turnover to the total turnover. Hence, in the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in reducing the refund amount, on proportionate basis, by colourable exercise of powers and passed order ignoring the directions and clarifications issued by the Board. The balance amount of refund of Rs. 8,88,762/- remains un-utilised due to withdrawal of duty of AED (T&TA) w.e.f 9.7.2004. Hence, it was rightly held in the order-in-original that the appellant is entitled to refund of entire amount of Rs. 22,54,910/-, which has been erroneously reduced by the Commissioner to Rs. 13,70,148/-. The availability of the untilised credit in the books of the appellant is undisp....