w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Commissioner of C. Ex., Ludhiana V/S Standard Electricals Ltd.

    Final Order No. A/60666/2017-SM(BR) in Appeal No. E/1111/2012-SM

    Decided On, 24 March 2017

    At, Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Chandigarh Bench

    By, THE HONORABLE JUSTICE: ASHOK JINDAL
    By, MEMBER

    For Petitioner: Harvinder Singh, AR And For Respondents: J.P. Kaushik, Advocate



Judgment Text


1. The Revenue is in appeal against the impugned order wherein Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed the refund in cash on the premises that the respondent is not able to utilize the Cenvat credit account. The facts of the case are that the respondents filed refund claim before this Tribunal and the Tribunal has held that the respondents was entitled to refund claim of Rs. 46,02,259/-. The adjudicating authority sanctioned the refund claimed by the respondent through cash of Rs. 30,70,557/- and the same has been paid through PLA. Remaining amount of Rs. 15,31,702/- was allowed through Cenvat credit account. The respondent filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) as they are not utilizing the Cenvat credit account, refund to be given in cash. The Commissioner (Appeals) relying on the fact that on 3-6-2011, the unit was closed and registration was surrendered and allowed the refund in cash. Aggrieved from the said order, the Revenue is before me.

2. Learned AR submits that while sanctioning refund claim by the adjudicating authority, the respondents have not surrendered the registration certificate, therefore, the refund was rightly allowed by the adjudicating authority in Cenvat credit account. The Commissioner (Appeals) fell in error holding that as the unit is closed, therefore, they are not able to utilize the credit, the refund be given in cash. Therefore, the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is factually incorrect as on the date when the adjudicating authority has allowed the refund through Cenvat credit account. Therefore, the impugned order is to be set aside.

3. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the appellants submits as they have stopped the production in September, 2009 and the stock lying in their factory had been cleared in March, 2010, thereafter, no activity was undertaken by the respondent and their factory was actually closed by them, although they have not surrendered the registration certificate, therefore, they have suppressed the fact before the Commissioner (Appeals) for granting refund claim in cash. In that circumstance, the Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly allowed the refund claim in cash.

4. Heard the parties and considered the submissions. The sole ground of the Revenue is that the order of the adjudicating authority is correct as on the date of passing of the order by the adjudicating authority, respondent was registered with the Central Excise department and have not in existence. I find that in this case, on the date of sanctioning of the refund by the adjudicating authority, the respondent was not engaged in the manufacturing activity. Moreover, as they were not utilizing Cenvat credit account, they have filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) for sanctioning refund in cash. During pendency of the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), the respondent has surrendered their registration certificate. In that circumstance, the respondent was not able to utilize t

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

he Cenvat credit account for payment of duty as no duty liability was confirmed against the respondent. In that circumstance, the Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly allowed the refund in cash, therefore, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order, the same is upheld and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.
O R