2024 (3) TMI 1473

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ally exported. Appellant was eligible to procure indigenously manufactured inputs on which central excise duty was paid and was eligible to avail cenvat credit of such duty paid on inputs. Due to exports, there was accumulation of cenvat credit. Under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, appellant claimed refund of accumulated cenvat credit during the months of November and December 2008. Through two orders, appellant was allowed refund of Rs. 5,82,63,493/-. Revenue filed appeal against such orders before Commissioner (Appeals). Simultaneously, Revenue also issued show cause notice dated 25.03.2010 for recovery of erroneous refund. The said show cause notice dated 25.03.2010 was decided by Commissioner of Central Excise, Belapur throug....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er, appellant is before this Tribunal. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the said cash deposit was made in accordance with the order passed by Commissioner on 29.02.2012 confirming the demand against erroneous refund. He has submitted that by the time the said deposit was made, the appeal filed before this Tribunal was not been taken up for decision as to whether any pre-deposit was to be ordered and, therefore, the same cannot be held to be predeposit ordered by this Tribunal. He has submitted that accumulated cenvat credit was refunded to the appellant and such refund was considered to be in accordance with law by this Tribunal through its final order dated 05.12.2019 a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... application filed by the appellant took place on 23.10.2012. Before August 2014, the provisions of Section 35F of Central Excise Act were that an aggrieved assessee filing appeal before this Tribunal was required to make full payment of the adjudged dues and then prefer an appeal. There was a procedure in practice that the appellant used to file application for stay of the order appealed against and hearing used to take place on such application. In appellant's case also, such hearing took place and the last sentence in the miscellaneous order deciding such application is that the stay petition is allowed. We also note that the stay petition was heard on 23.10.2012 and the appellant had made cash deposit on 12.10.2012 much before the heari....