TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (9) TMI 173
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ate to denial/restriction of part of the refund claims filed by the appellant. 1.2 Excise Appeal No. 4662 of 2004 is also by the same appellant against the Order-in-Appeal of the Commissioner (Appeals) No. 103-CE/DLH/2004 dated 21-6-2004. Excise Appeal No. 4677 is by the Department against the same Order-in-Appeal of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) No. 103-CE/DIH/2004 dated 21-6-2004. 1.3 The issues in the six appeals referred in para 1.1. above and the issues in the appeals referred in para 1.2. are some what inter connected and therefore all these are being disposed of by a common order. 2. Heard both sides. 3.1 The relevant facts in respect of six appeals, in brief, are as follows:- (a) The appellant is a manu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on the scrap. In respect of some months the appellant has claimed refund of cenvat even in respect of inputs, which though received in the particular month to which the refund related, were not utilised in the same month. (g) The details of refund applied, sanctioned and total deduction are as follows :- Month of 2002 Refund applied Refund sanctioned Deduction on a/c scrap duty adjustment Deduction on account of material not Consumed in the same quarter/ month Total deduction Scrap duty rate applied 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 April, June 3581026 3371457 209569 0 209569 16% July 1012027 532559 98400 381068 479468 16%....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....been upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Department is on appeal contending that the claim of refund was for the credit accumulated in the cenvat account; the amount of Rs. 6,54,401/- which was not sanctioned continued lie in the account of the appellant, therefore, the order of the original authority in directing debiting of Rs. 6,54,401/- from the said account is legal and the Commissioner (Appeals) should not have interfered with the said decision. 4.1 Learned Advocate made the following submissions. The refund of Rs. 17,59,558/- has been denied for minor breach of procedure. The ground that the credit related to inputs which have not been used in the same month is only a technical ground. Whatever portion of the refund has b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....certain months the rate of duty on scrap has been applied erroneously by denying the concession under Notification No. 9/2002. 5.1 Learned DR submits that the scrap generated during the course of manufacture was dutiable; inasmuch as they have availed credit on the inputs, the condition for availing benefit of the Notification No. 8/2002 is violated and, therefore, duty requires to be paid. As regards to the eligibility for concessional rate of duty prescribed under Notification No. 9/2002, the exercise of option was one of the conditions to be fulfilled and the appellant has not fulfilled. 5.2 He also submitted that when the appellant claimed refunds of amounts lying in Cenvat credit; reduced amounts were sanctioned. Whatever amount ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (one claim), August 2003 (one claim) and September 2003 (4 claims). It has not been denied that the entire inputs have been used for the manufacture of the final products in the succeeding months and the final products have been exported. Therefore, the said amount still lying in their account shall be paid as cash refund. The question of payment of interest for amount lying in cenvat credit account does not arise. 7.1 As regards the dutiability of the scrap we uphold the view of the department that the same is dutiable; the appellant having taken input credit on coils and sheets are not eligible for the benefit of SSI exemption under Notification No. 8/2002. However, the benefit of Notification No. 9/2002 wherein a concessional rate of....