2018 (7) TMI 997 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI – Transitional Credit – MODVAT scheme – Cash Refund – The ld. counsel submitted that the issue with regard to demand of ₹ 54,06,249/- has attained finality wherein the issue was held in favor of the appellant vide Order-in-Appeal No.47/2010 dated 4.8.2010 and therefore the question of adjustment of ₹ 8,13,816/- does not arise – Held that:- It is very much clear that the adjudicating authority as well as the Commissioner (Appeals) have floated the order passed by the Tribunal by rejecting the refund claim of the appellant – the partial rejection of refund is against the order passed by Tribunal and therefore cannot sustain – appeal allowed – decided in favor of appellant. – Appeal No. E/40362/2018 – Final Order No. 42012 / 2018 – Dated:- 13-7-2018 – Hon ble Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) Shri T.R. Ramesh, Advocate for the Appellant Shri K.P. Muralidharan, AC (AR) for the Respondent ORDER Brief facts are that the appellant i
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
llant is eligible for credit of ₹ 8,13,816/- was decided and the same was allowed in favour of the appellant. Further, the issue as to whether the appellant is eligible for refund of ₹ 51,03,303/- as cash refund was considered by the Tribunal in the said final order. The department has not filed any appeal against the said final order and the adjudicating authority has wrongly held that the appellant is eligible only for part of the refund amount. He has thus not complied with the final order passed by the Tribunal. In fact, the adjudicating authority has no powers to readjudicate the matter which has been already decided by the Tribunal. It is also submitted by him that no show cause notice was issued to the appellant for raising the contention that the appellant is not eligible for refund of ₹ 8,13,816/-. 3. The ld. AR Shri K.P. Muralidharan supported the findings in the impugned order. He adverted to the discussions in the Order-in-Original and submitted that the c
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
of credit due to the objections from the department and the contention of the appellant that had the department granted refund in the year 1994 itself, the appellant would not have made the payment by cash from the PLA and due to the dispute being not settled for 16 years, the appellant cannot be denied of their benefit to cash refund. The appellant is now an SSI unit and their clearance are very much within the limits prescribed under the SSI. xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx The authorities below have lost sight of the fact that cenvat credit is a beneficial legislation and disputes such as the one if allowed to continue would deprive the assessees, as in the instant case. In view of the foregoing discussions, I hold that appellant is entitled to cash refund. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed with consequential relief. 6. It is thus seen that the Tribunal had considered the issue whether the appellant is eligible for cash refund to the tune of ₹ 11,03,303/- and held that the same is
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =