ORDER
Chittaranjan Satapathy, Member (T)
1. Heard both sides. These four appeals, according to the learned Advocate for the appellants, involve Rs. 12,470/-. Rs. 34,777/-, Rs. 47,165/- and Rs. 35,654/- respectively. Since the amount in each case is below Rs. 50,000/-, the appeals are first taken up for consideration as to whether they should be admitted for hearing.
2. The learned Advocate for the appellants states that initially the appellants were denied Modvat credit on capital goods on the ground that the same were not used in the manufacture of final products. Accordingly, they reversed the credit, which on appeal to the Tribunal was allowed. Subsequently, the appellants filed a refund claim and they were allowed refund in cash by the original authority, which on department’s appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) has been reversed. The Commissioner (Appeals) has relied on the earlier decision of the Tribunal in the case of CCE v. Rajshri Cements 2001 (44) RLT 186 (CEGAT), which held that while refund of duty paid through Modvat credit is admissible by way of credit in the Modvat account, cash refund is not permissible except in the case of refund of unutilized credit on export of final products. The learned Advocate for the appellants cites the following decisions, to state that cash refund has been permitted in the similar cases:
(i) CCE, Bhopal v. Bombay Burmah Trading Corporation Ltd.
(ii) CCE, Ahmedabad I v. Arcoy Industries
(iii) CCE, Ahmedabad v. Omkar Textiles 2002 (148) E.L.T. 461 (Tri. Mum.)
He also states that the appellants are not in a position to utilize the credit as they have closed down.
3. The learned SDR argues on behalf of Revenue that such cash refund is not permissible as has been rightly held in the cases of CCE v. Rajshri Cements 2001 (44) RLT 186 (CEGAT) and Rollatainers Ltd. v. CCE, Jaipur He further states that the rules permit refund of cash only in respect of cases of export and that there are no rules for permitting cash refund in other cases such as this.
4. After considering the records of the case as well as written and oral submissions made including the cited case laws. I am of the view that the decisions in the cases of Bombay Burmah (supra), Arcoy Industries (supra) and Omkar Textiles (supra) have been rendered contrary to the earlier decision of the Tribunal in the case of Rajshri Cements (supra), which was delivered at an earlier point of time on 9.9.2001. Moreover, Rajshri Cements also correctly notices the provisions of law which allows cash refund only in the case of unutilized credit in respect of export of final products. Hence, the decision in the said case is binding and the same requires to be followed until reversed by either a Larger Bench or by any superior court.
5. Accordingly, I am of the view that the appellants do not have a case in their favour. Since the amount in each case is less than Rs. 50,000/-, the appeals are dismissed at the admission stage itself. The stay applications also stand disposed off.
(Dicated in Court)