TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (12) TMI 904
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2006, culminating in confirmation of demand of duties of central excise amounting to Rs. 1,51,38,431 that was substantially set aside in appeal. The appellant herein had remitted Rs. 1,32,60,035 by debiting CENVAT credit account and from 'personal ledger account (PLA)' and, following disposal of their appeal by the Tribunal restricting a liability to only Rs. 4,99,690, refund of Rs. 1,27,60,345 was sought vide claim dated 12th June 2014. Of this, Rs. 71,33,842 paid by unit II comprised Rs. 66,87,835 from CENVAT credit and Rs. 39,06,996 paid by unit V comprised Rs. 13,80,249 from CENVAT credit. While Rs. 51,46,780 was refunded through cheque, Rs. 76,13,565 paid through CENVAT credit was refunded by restoring Rs. 65,08,842 and Rs. 11,04,723 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in Commissioner of Excise, Delhi-I v. Birla Textiles Mills [2010 (257) ELT 146 (Tri- Dell)], besides several others on similar lines, were cited by Learned Counsel. He submitted that the distinguishment of these decisions in the impugned order with the finding that, unlike the facts in those disputes, one unit of the appellant continued operation is erroneous inasmuch as the said unit, as '100% export oriented unit (EOU)', was also unable to utilize the restored credit. 5. Learned Authorised Representative placed reliance on the decision of a Larger Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in Gauri Plasticulture P Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore [2019 (30) GSTL 224 (Bom)] and decision of the Tribunal in SKH Sila India Pvt Ltd v.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....amount of Cenvat 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 v. Slovak India Trading Company Pvt. Ltd.) can be read as a declaration of law under Article 141 of the Constitution of India?"' thus '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 accordingly, needless to state that the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Slovak India (s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... or by utilisation of credit; this flows from the authority to levy and collect duty of excise in section 3 of Central Excise Act, 1944. 8. Thus the scheme, with the avowed objective of preventing the cascading effects of tax, allows discharge of tax liability from two sources: the cash deposit known as 'account current' and from the credit of the tax already collected from the production chain known as 'CENVAT credit account' with the latter as an option to be used fully or partially in each instance. This is also in pursuance of the constitutional power to tax manufacture and provides the mechanism to restrict the actual payment to the contribution of an assessee to the production chain. At the root is the resting of the tax burden on t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....944 and section 94 of Finance Act, 1994 to operationalize section 3 of the former and section 66 of the latter. 11. Moreover, the conversion of credit into cash would be a refund to the buyer of the tax collected under authority of law from a manufacturer-seller. Refund in tax statute is the return of a tax collected without authority of law and, hence, not validly retainable with the exchequer. Refund of such accumulated credit arising from payment of duty or tax at the stage of manufacture is tantamount to a finding that the duty or tax was collected at the preceding stage without the authority of law. That is certainly not, and can never be, the contention of the appellant.' by the Tribunal in re Voltas Ltd, makes it abundantly clear....