9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (2) TMI 1001 - AT - Central ExciseRefund - Cenvat credit - Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - Notification No. 50/2008 CE(N.T.) - even prior to this notification, as per SEZ Act, supplies made to SEZ has been considered as export which has been endorsed by CBEC in its circular dated 28/4/2015 and on very identical issue, this Tribunal and Hon ble High Court in the judgments cited by the Ld. Counsel, consistently settled the issue that against the supplies made to SEZ the assesse is entitle for the benefits/incentive which is otherwise available to the physical exports of the goods made out of country, therefore appellant is undoubtedly entitle for the refund under Rule 5 of the CCR, 2004 in respect of inputs used in the goods manufactured and supplied to SEZ developer - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of the assessee.
Issues involved: Entitlement to refund claim in respect of Cenvat credit under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 against supplies of finished goods made under bond to SEZ developers prior to the issue of Notification No. 50/2008 CE(N.T.) dated 31/12/2008.
Analysis: 1. Issue of Entitlement to Refund Claim: The main issue in this case revolved around whether the appellant was entitled to a refund claim in relation to Cenvat credit under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 for supplies of finished goods made to SEZ developers before the issuance of Notification No. 50/2008 CE(N.T.) dated 31/12/2008. The appellant argued that even before the amendment of the notification, supplies to SEZ developers were considered as exports for all purposes. This argument was supported by previous tribunal judgments and High Court decisions, such as Sujana Metal Products Ltd Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. Hyderabad, Seimens Ltd Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. Navi Mumbai, Ultra Tech Cement Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Tirupati, and Commr. of C. Ex. & S.T. Bangalore Vs. Fosroc Chemicals (India) Pvt Ltd. The appellant also cited a circular by the Central Board of Excise & Customs clarifying that supplies from DTA to SEZ developers were considered as exports under the SEZ Act. 2. Judgment and Analysis: The Tribunal carefully considered the submissions from both parties and reviewed the records. It was noted that the appellant had indeed supplied goods to the SEZ developer, and the only point of contention was the entitlement to a refund of accumulated Cenvat credit under Rule 5 before the amendment of Notification No. 50/2008-CE(N.T.). The Tribunal found that even prior to this notification, supplies to SEZ were considered as exports under the SEZ Act, as endorsed by the CBEC circular. Relying on the consistent rulings of the Tribunal and High Courts on similar issues, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant was entitled to the benefits and incentives available to physical exports of goods made outside the country. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and upheld the Order-in-Original that sanctioned the refund claim to the appellant. The appeal was allowed with any consequential relief as per the law. This detailed analysis of the judgment provides a comprehensive understanding of the legal issues involved and the reasoning behind the Tribunal's decision.
|
