SWELORE ENGG. PVT. LTD. Vs. C.C.E.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appeal in this case arises out of Order -in -Appeal dated 22.8.2003 wherein the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the Order -in -Original of rejection of refund claim filed by the appellants.

(2.) THE relevant facts of the case for consideration are that the appellants were having two units in the same GIDC separated by a GIDC road. The appellants were registered separately. As per Board's Circular, if two units of the same company are separated by a road permission may be granted to get one registration number. Relying upon such Circular the appellants applied for one common registration certificate. The said registration was granted to the appellants on 18.6.98 wherein the addresses of both the units i.e. plot No. 2109 and 2013 is mentioned. Subsequently the appellants on 1.7.1998 applied for transfer of the Modvat Credit lying in balance in RG23, Part II, in respect of unit at plot No. 2013 into the Credit of RG23, Part II of unit at plot No. 2109. The said request was rejected by the Commissioner's office on 24.8.99. The appellants followed up this rejection letter by another letter for consideration. The department kept silent on the whole issue. The appellants on 26.9.2001 suo moto took the Credit of an amount Rs. 2,24,900/ - in their RG -23C, Part -II, the said Credit was objected to by the department and on 23.11.2001 the appellants were forced/coerced to debit an amount of Rs. 2,24,900/ - alongwith interest of Rs. 8,725/ - on their PLA by the departmental authorities. The appellants preferred a refund claim of this amount paid by in PLA. The refund claim was rejected by the first Adjudicating Authority and then by the Appellate Authority.

(3.) THE learned Advocate on behalf of the appellants submits that once a common registration is granted by the appellants they could on their own maintain single record i.e. one single PLA, one single RG23 -C, Part II and RG23A Part II. It was an error on the part of the appellants to ask for the credit of the amount. He, further, submits that the amount paid by them in PLA was under mistake and coercion, and should be refunded. He relies upon specifically on the decision in the case of Sree Cement Ltd. v. CCE, Jaipur and in the CCE, Rajkot v. Depak Vegetable Oil Inds. . He also submits that since both units are still working the refund need not to be in cash and it should be refunded as Credit in RG23 -C, Part -II.