TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 152
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....missioner, Central Excise rejecting the request of the petitioner for re-credit of Rs. 1,68,99,531/- and Rs. 2,05,33,931/- and further direction is for directing the respondent No. 2 to allow re-credit of Rs. 3,74,33,462/- in the petitioners' Cenvat Register. 2. The petitioner - Company is a manufacturing excisable goods like induction, melting/heating furnace, welder and parts etc., and has been discharging liability of payment of excise duties on the goods manufactured and cleared from the factory as prescribed under the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short 'the Act'). 3. A show cause notice dated 05.10.2006 was issued by the respondent authority proposing to recover an aggregate amount of Rs. 1,69,04,271/- by invoking Section 11D of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 (for short 'the Rules') which permits refund of Cenvat credit under certain circumstances and the utilization of Cenvat credit by the petitioner company for the purpose of payment of unauthorizedly collected excise duty was impermissible under the Rules. After the aforesaid judgment, the petitioner deposited the amount of excise duty of Rs. 2,05,33,931/- on 22.02.2013 and thereafter an amount of Rs. 1,68,99,531/- on 14.11.2013. 6. After such deposit of the excise duty, the petitioner vide communication dated 08.01.2014 requested the respondent Department that since the dispute between the company and the Department no longer survives from February, 2008 and as they have been paying amount from Pe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... writ petition. 9. Learned counsel Mr. Paresh M. Dave, appearing for the petitioner, has submitted that the petitioner is not seeking suo motu re-credit of the amount, but the amount which has been deposited from PLA pursuant to the judgment of this Court and equal amount debited from Cenvat account when the inputs and bought outs were cleared, and the credit was utilized by the petitioner company, the same is now required to be recredited in the Cenvat Account. 9.1 Learned counsel Mr. Dave has placed reliance on the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of ICMC Corporation Ltd., Vs. CESTAT, Chennai, 2014 (302) ELT 45 (Madras) and has submitted that the Madras High Court in case of assessee claiming the re-credit of Cenvat suo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ench of this CESTAT, Mumbai, in case of BDH. Industries Ltd., Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) Mumbai-1. 11. We have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties at length. The facts which are established from the pleadings and record are that the petitioner was subjected to the recovery proceedings by issuance of show cause notice dated 05.10.2006 alleging that the aforesaid amount which was debited from the Cenvat credit was dehors the provisions of the Act and the Rules. Ultimately, the dispute landed before this Court in Tax Appeal No. 1744 of 2007. By the judgment and order dated 28.6.2012 the Coordinate Bench of this Court set aside the order of the Tribunal which was in the favour of the petitioner ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Account. The petitioner had categorically in their representation informed the Department that the refund of the Cenvat credit would not be in accordance with the Act or Rules because refund of this Cenvat credit would result in a situation as they have to receive the same amount in cash, and the such action would not be permissible. Thus, it is not in dispute that there has been a double payment made by the petitioner. Initially, by utilizing his credit from his Cenvat Account, which is found to be impermissible by this Court, and secondly, by paying cash from his PLA account. 13. In our considered opinion, the respondent Department, on receipt of the excise duty paid by the petitioner through cash from PLA, ought to have re-credited t....