2024 (6) TMI 298

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... rise to the filing of the present appeal are that the appellant was engaged in the manufacture of various re-rolled products of Iron & Steel Viz. M.S. Bars (Patra), M.S. Flats and M.S. Squares falling under Chapter 72 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence, Ludhiana, issued a show cause notice dated 31.08.2010 to various parties including the appellant raising demand of central excise duty on allegation that the appellant had clandestinely received inputs from M/s Nabha Steels Ltd. and M/s Pushpanjali Steel Alloys Pvt. Ltd. which were further used by the Appellant in manufacture of final product subsequently cleared clandestinely without payment of duty. The Appellant had debited an a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y Hon'ble High Court, the appellant debited full disputed amount of duty amounting to Rs.46,97,000/- in their RG 23A Part-2 register on 10.06.2017, under protest; thereafter, on 20.09.2018 department withdrew its appeal from the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh in view of new monetary policy and the said order of withdrawal of the appeal is on record. After the decision of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana the appellant on 09.06.2020 again filed refund claim amounting to Rs. 62,42,000/- (including refund amounting to Rs. 15,45,000/- already sanctioned by the revenue authority); thereafter, the Assistant Commissioner, Central GST Division, Mandi Gobindgarh, issued the show cause notice dated 15.07.2020 proposin....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y the respondent. 7. He further submits that when the appeal was withdrawn by the department duty demand was finally settled and the final order passed by this Tribunal attained finality. He further submits that the findings of the lower authorities that the appellant had debited the Cenvat credit just to encash the same, is baseless and presumptuous in nature. Ld. Counsel also justified the taking of credit entry of Rs. 6,54,426/- in the month of June, 2017 from the Cenvat credit 15,45,000/-. He utilized the credit of Rs. 6,54,426/- because he was registered with the Central Excise Department. Ld. Counsel further submits that the department while sanctioning refund claim cannot question the eligibility of Cenvat credit and if the departme....