K.S. Jhaveri, J. - (1.) By way of this appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment and order of Tribunal whereby the Tribunal has dismissed the appeal of the assessee.
(2.) This Court while admitting the appeal on 2-11-2017 framed the following substantial questions of law : "(i) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the Appellate Tribunal was correct, in law, and justified in holding that the refund cannot be allowed under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004? (ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case, Appellate Tribunal was correct, in law, and justified in holding that there is no provision for allowing refund of accumulated Cenvat credit on closure of the factory?"
(3.) The facts of the case are that appellant was manufacturing medicine, namely, Odoxin, which was governed by direct price control order. 3.1 A duty of 4% was paid on Odoxin whereas input credit utilized in manufacture of Odoxin suffered a duty of 10 per cent on local inputs and 14% on imported inputs. As a result, there was wide gap between Cenvat credit availed and duty paid on the final product. 3.2 The appellant was unable to utilize the Cenvat credit by paying the duty on final product resulting into a credit balance of Rs. 1,34,45,987/- lying in Cenvat credit. 3.3 The appellant closed their factory on 31-3-2011 and applied for cash refund of the Cenvat amount of Rs. 1,34,45,9877- lying in their Cenvat credit account. 3.4 The appellant's application for cash refund has been rejected by the Asst. Commissioner and Commissioner (Appeals). ;