Page 196 - ELT_1_1st April 2020_Vol 372_Part

82 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372

tion, liable to be refunded in cash - Contention of Revenue that provisions of
Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 not applicable in respect of tobacco manufacturers
working under Chewing Tobacco and Unmanufactured Tobacco Packing Ma-
chine (Capacity Determination and Collection of Duty) Rules, 2010, not ac-
ceptable - Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 and Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit
Rules, 2004. [paras 6, 7, 8, 9]
Appeals allowed
CASES CITED
Collector v. National Organic Chemical Industries Ltd. — 1996 (84) E.L.T. A106 (S.C.)
— Relied on ....................................................................................................................................... [Para 9]
Commissioner v. Bhavin Textiles — 2008 (221) E.L.T. 44 (Guj.) — Relied on ................................... [Para 9]
Commissioner v. Bombay Burmah Trading Corp. Ltd. — 2005 (190) E.L.T. 40 (Tribunal)
— Relied on ....................................................................................................................................... [Para 9]
Commissioner v. Deepak Vegatable Oil Industries — 2001 (127) E.L.T. 817 (Tribunal)
— Relied on ....................................................................................................................................... [Para 9]
Commissioner v. Deepti Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. — 2006 (201) E.L.T. 423 (Tribunal) — Relied on ..... [Para 9]
Commissioner v. Maha Sree Aruna Chemicals — 2008 (230) E.L.T. 571 (Tribunal)
— Relied on ....................................................................................................................................... [Para 9]
Commissioner v. Nag Polypouches Pvt. Ltd. — 2006 (201) E.L.T. 136 (Tribunal) — Relied on..... [Para 9]
Commissioner v. Spic Ltd. — 2014 (305) E.L.T. 484 (Mad.) — Referred ........................................ [Para 3.4]
Delphi-TVS Diesel Systems Ltd. v. CESTAT — 2015 (324) E.L.T. 270 (Mad.)
— Relied on ....................................................................................................................................... [Para 9]
Gauri Plasticulture Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2006 (202) E.L.T. 199 (Tribunal-LB)
— Relied on ....................................................................................................................................... [Para 9]
Kundalia Industries v. Commissioner — 2007 (8) S.T.R. 437 (Tribunal) — Relied on ..................... [Para 9]
National Organic Chemical Industries Ltd. v. Collector — 1994 (70) E.L.T. 722 (Tribunal)
— Relied on ....................................................................................................................................... [Para 9]
Shree Prakash Textiles (Guj.) Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2004 (169) E.L.T. 162 (Tribunal)
— Relied on ....................................................................................................................................... [Para 9]
Slovak India Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2006 (205) E.L.T. 956 (Tribunal)
— Relied on ....................................................................................................................................... [Para 9]
Tablets India Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2006 (197) E.L.T. 449 (Tribunal) — Relied on ..................... [Para 9]
REPRESENTED BY : S/Shri Ashwani Sharma, Anurag Mishra and Ms.
Trapti Gupta, Advocates, for the Appellant.
Shri S.K. Bansal, AR, for the Respondent.
[Order per : Bijay Kumar, Member (T)]. - The present appeal is filed
against the Order-in-Appeal Nos. 257-258/CE/DLH/2017, dated 12-10-2017 (for
short ‘impugned order’) vide which the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld
the order passed by the original adjudicating authority, wherein she has rejected
the refund claim filed by the appellant for an amount of Rs. 1,68,56,178/- on the
ground that the refund of unutilised credit is not admissible to the appellant by
way of granting cash refund under the provisions of Rule 17 of Chewing Tobacco
and Unmanufactured Tobacco Packing Machine (for short ‘Rules’), 2010 within
the frame work of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short ‘Excise Act’).
2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in the
manufacture of chewing tobacco and were duly registered with the Central Ex-
cise Department. The appellant surrendered their Registration Certificate on 9-9-
2015. Consequently, they filed two refund claims on 22-2-2016 and 30-3-2016 on
the ground that they had operated FFS Pouch Packing Machines and the produc-

EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st April 2020  244