Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Arcoy Industries

Commissioner of Central Excise vs Arcoy Industries

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Apr 07, 2004

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/34885

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/34885
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Judge: A Wadhwa
Decided On: Apr 07, 2004
Subject: Service Tax

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Service Tax

Key legal issue: Service Tax

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Commissioner of Central Excise

Respondent

Arcoy Industries

Legal References

Reported In: (2004)(170)ELT507Tri(Mum.)bai

Excerpt

1. after hearing shri arun chopra, ld. jdr appearing for the revenue, i find that the commissioner (appeals) vide his impugned order has held that the refund claim of rs. 1,09,026/- should be given to the respondent by way of cash, if the asst. commissioner is satisfied that the respondent are not in a position to utilise the credit in rg 23 pt.ii. while ordering so he has taken into consideration the tribunal's decision in the case of c.c.e. v. indian aluminium co. ltd. reported in 2002 (139) e.l.t. 125 (tri.-kolkata).2. the said amount was originally paid by the respondents by debiting rg 23 pt. ii. however, when the dispute was finally settled, they claimed the refund in pla inasmuch as by that time they had moved out of the modvat credit scheme and were availing the benefit of small scale exemption notification. commissioner (appeals) observed that if it is so the refund should be given to the respondents in cash.3. i find no infirmity in the above view of the commissioner (appeals).if the respondents is not able to utilise the credit, the very basis of the refund is defeated, in which case the amount is to be given to him in cash.4. in view of the foregoing, i do not find any merits in the revenue's appeal and reject the same.

Full Judgment

1. After hearing Shri Arun Chopra, Ld. JDR appearing for the Revenue, I find that the Commissioner (Appeals) vide his impugned order has held that the refund claim of Rs. 1,09,026/- should be given to the respondent by way of cash, if the Asst. Commissioner is satisfied that the respondent are not in a position to utilise the credit in RG 23 Pt.

II. While ordering so he has taken into consideration the Tribunal's decision in the case of C.C.E. v. Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd. reported in 2002 (139) E.L.T. 125 (Tri.-Kolkata).

2. The said amount was originally paid by the respondents by debiting RG 23 Pt. II. However, when the dispute was finally settled, they claimed the refund in PLA inasmuch as by that time they had moved out of the Modvat credit scheme and were availing the benefit of small scale exemption notification. Commissioner (Appeals) observed that if it is so the refund should be given to the respondents in cash.

3. I find no infirmity in the above view of the Commissioner (Appeals).

If the respondents is not able to utilise the credit, the very basis of the refund is defeated, in which case the amount is to be given to him in cash.

4. In view of the foregoing, I do not find any merits in the Revenue's appeal and reject the same.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties Commissioner of Central Excise vs Arcoy Industries Same Subject Service Tax Same Judge A Wadhwa