2006 (4) TMI 378 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether refund can be permitted when the final product has been exported under a rebate claim.

Analysis:
The case involved an appeal by the assessee against the order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) setting aside the refund claim sanctioned by the adjudicating authority. The appellants had exported dyed/processed manmade fabrics, with their main inputs being polyester viscose yarn. They had unutilized credit of duty paid on inputs in their Cenvat Credit Register due to the unavailability of utilizing it towards payment of duty for clearances, as AED (T & TA) was not leviable on the final product. The issue centered around whether a refund could be allowed for exports made under a rebate claim.

The Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) noted that the goods were exported under a rebate claim and not under bond, distinguishing it from the cases cited by the appellants. However, the Ld. Counsel for the appellants relied on a Tribunal decision that favored the assessee's position. The Tribunal's decision was cited to argue that the absence of AED (T & TA) liability on the final goods made the export method (rebate or bond) irrelevant. Based on this contention and other decisions presented, the Ld. Counsel argued for a prima facie case in favor of the assessee, warranting a stay of the impugned order.

In light of the arguments presented, the judge, Shri T. Anjaneyulu, ordered in favor of the assessee, directing that the appeals be listed accordingly for further proceedings. The decision highlighted the importance of the applicability of duty liabilities on the final product in determining the eligibility for refunds, irrespective of the export method used, whether under rebate or bond.