TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (12) TMI 1140
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....m for refund was discharge of duty liability of Rs. 1,79,86,516/- for the period from June 2011 to November 2011 - once by regular debiting of CENVAT credit account and again in November 2011 by debiting 'account current'. - owing to insistence of central excise authorities as the appellant, a manufacturer of excisable goods, had short-paid duties of central excise payable in April 2011 by not debiting in the 'personal ledger account (PLA)' though reported otherwise in the return filed by them necessitating compliance with rule 8(3) and rule 8(3A) of Central Excise Rules, 2002 upon cognizance of the default. As the appellant had made payment of Rs. 7,92,236/-, along with applicable interest, only on 9^th November, 2011 and had discharged du....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing the finding of the original authority, held that payment of refund in cash in accordance with the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in re Slovak India Trading Co Ltd would not arise as the assessee had failed to submit any evidence of closure of factory or of registration certificate having been surrendered. However, taking note of the challenge to appropriation of part of sanctioned amount towards arrears, the adjustment was restricted to Rs. 9,72,216/- on the finding that the referred adjudication order had also appropriated Rs. 15,76,605/- paid by them. Aggrieved by the rejection of the application for monetization of credit, the dispute is now before us. 5. According to Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rawing privilege of consolidated payment at the end of each month as well as of discharge through CENVAT credit till the default is made good along with interest. As the original default was, admittedly, made good only in November 2011, subsequent debits in CENVAT credit account towards discharge of duty liability for succeeding months was as good as non-payment of duty which was also made good only in November 2011. It would appear that the assessee expected simultaneous restoration of the credit utilized towards dues of the preceding months and, owing to non-initiation thereof, took up the case for restoration of the credit and also filed claim for refund in cash. While the double collection of duty was rectified by restoration of credit,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... case of Slovak India (supra) cannot be read as a declaration of law under Article 141 of the Constitution of India.' 9. The appellant had contended before the lower authorities that failure on the part of central excise authorities to restore the credit promptly obliged them to monetize the credit restored later. Equity, or lack of diligence on the part of agencies of the government, is no ground for permitting that which is impermissible by law. The Tribunal, in Voltas Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-IV [2018 (4) TMI 352-CESTAT MUMBAI,] had examined the nature of CENVAT credit scheme as well as the significance of utilization of credit for discharge of duty liability thus '6. It would appear from these decisions th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 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 the ultimate consumer, which could either be the entity that is not a registered assessee or an assessee who is beyond the ambit of Central Excise Act, 1944. We are not here concerned with the former. As far as the latter is concerned, the assessee is within the authority of Central Excise Act, 1944 only to the extent that it produces excisable goods or is in possession of such goods that are yet to be cleared. Without production in process or without possession of processed goods, an assessee is not an ....