M/s. Banswara Syntex Limited Versus CGST, Udaipur
Central Excise
2018 (6) TMI 777 – CESTAT NEW DELHI – TMI
CESTAT NEW DELHI – AT
Dated:- 30-5-2018
Excise Appeal No. E/50884/2018-EX[SM] – A/52111/2018-SM[BR]
Central Excise
MRS. ARACHNA WADHWA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
Present for the Appellant: Ms. Rinki Arora, Advocate
Present for the Respondent: Mr. H. C. Saini, D.R.
PER: ARCHNA WADHWA
After hearing both the sides, I find that the appellant are engaged in the manufacture of Cotton Yarns, which attracted education cess as also Secondary & Higher Education Cess. The appellant was availing the credit of cess paid on the various raw material and was utilising the same for payment of cess on their final product, inasmuch as cross payment of cess towards basic excise duty was not permissible.
2. With effect from 01.03.2015, the yarn was exempted from payment of cess as also Secondary & Higher Education Cess vide two Notification No. 14/2015-CE and 15/2015-CE both dated
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
was upheld by Commissioner (Appeals) and hence the present Appeal.
4. By referring to the provisions of Section 11B of Central Excise Act, the appellate authority observed:
“8. I find that Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is for refund of Central Excise Duty/ Service Tax & interest does not have any provision for sanction of refund of unutilized or accumulated closing balance of Cenvat credit of Education Cess and SHE Cess paid on inputs, input services and capital goods. Further, refund of accumulated credit can be allowed under Rule 5 of CCR, 2004 but that is permissible only in case of exports. However, the assesse has not claimed refund under Rule 5 and therefore this refund of accumulated credit is not refundable. The refund of cenvat credit to units in specified areas and service receiver paid under RCM is allowed under rule 5A/5B of CCR, 2004 but that is also not the case here and therefore in absence of any provision of Central Excise Law/ Service Tax law, refund o
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
he authorities under the Act has clearly observed that the authorities have to work within the provisions of law and cannot exercise writ jurisdiction of High Courts in terms of Article 226.
6. Otherwise also, I find that the Cenvat Credit Rules allows the credit of the duty/tax paid on the inputs for further utilisation of the same in discharge of the dues on the final product. As such, it become clear that credit is admissible only for utilisation towards payment of duty on the final product of the asessee and such credit can never be encashed by the asessee. In case the same is not available for utilisation for payment of duty on the final product, the same would get lapsed and may be kept in the records for utilisation for any future time but under no circumstances the same is not available to the asessee.
7. In view of my foregoing discussions, I find no infirmity in the view adopted by the lower authorities. Accordingly, the impugned order is upheld and the appeal is rejected.
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =