2010 (2) TMI 1154 - HC - Central Excise

100% EOU - refund claim - unutilised credit - deemed export - Held that - refund of unutilised Cenvat credit was admissible in the case before it since inputs were used in the manufacture of final products which were cleared to another 100% EOU as deemed export and same has to be treated as export - refund allowed.

Summary

Issues: Application for stay against judgment of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal; Refund of unutilised Cenvat credit; Admissibility of refund for inputs used in manufacture of final products cleared to 100% EOU.

1. Application for Stay Against Judgment of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal:
The High Court rejected the application for stay against the judgment and order dated 27-11-2007/6-2-2008 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Commissioner of Central Excise had filed Tax Appeal No. 968 of 2008, which was admitted, and substantial questions of law were framed. The opponent-assessee had already received the refund pursuant to the CESTAT order, and it was argued that there was no basis for staying the order. The CESTAT had relied on its own order in a previous case, and even though the Revenue had challenged it before the Apex Court, no stay was granted. Consequently, the High Court rejected the application for stay, directing the main Tax Appeal to be placed for hearing.

2. Refund of Unutilised Cenvat Credit:
The Appellate Tribunal, in the impugned order, determined that the refund of unutilised Cenvat credit was admissible in the case at hand. This decision was based on the premise that inputs were utilized in the manufacturing process of final products, which were then cleared to another 100% Export Oriented Unit (EOU) as deemed exports. The Tribunal concluded that such transactions should be treated as exports, thereby justifying the refund of the unutilised Cenvat credit.

3. Admissibility of Refund for Inputs Used in Manufacture of Final Products Cleared to 100% EOU:
The key issue addressed by the Appellate Tribunal was the admissibility of the refund for inputs that were used in the production of final products subsequently cleared to a 100% EOU. The Tribunal held that in this scenario, where the final products were treated as exports, the refund of unutilised Cenvat credit was permissible. By considering the clearance to the EOU as deemed exports and equating it to actual exports, the Tribunal justified the eligibility for the refund of the Cenvat credit under the prevailing legal framework.

In conclusion, the judgment by the High Court of Gujarat pertained to the rejection of an application for stay against the CESTAT order, the admissibility of refund of unutilised Cenvat credit, and the treatment of final products cleared to a 100% EOU as exports for the purpose of claiming such refunds. The decision highlighted the legal interpretation of export-related transactions and their implications on Cenvat credit refunds, providing clarity on the applicable regulations and precedents in the realm of indirect taxation.