2017 (1) TMI 1423 - AT - Central Excise

100% EOU - Refund of CENVAT credit - deemed export - Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rule (CCR), 2004 read with N/N. 27/2012 dated 18.6.2012 - Held that - in the respondent s own case Apotex Pharmachem India Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax Bangalore 2016 (11) TMI 578 - CESTAT BANGALORE , this Tribunal has already taken a view that deemed export is equivalent to physical exports for the purpose of Rule 5 - refund allowed - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against refund of CENVAT credit for deemed exports.

Analysis:
The department filed appeals challenging the Order-in-Appeal allowing the refund of CENVAT credit for deemed exports. The respondent-assessee, a 100% EOU, filed 5 refund claims related to different periods. The department argued that deemed exports cannot be equated with physical exports, and Rule 5 of CCR, 2004 does not apply to deemed exports. The Commissioner (A) allowed the refund based on judgments stating that deemed exports are equivalent to physical exports.

The department contended that Rule 5 does not provide for refund in case of deemed exports, and there is a policy decision to treat deemed exports differently. The respondent cited various decisions supporting the equivalence of deemed exports to physical exports. The Tribunal, in the respondent's previous case, allowed the refund for deemed exports. The Commissioner (A) relied on case laws and held that deemed exports are eligible for refund under Rule 5.

The impugned order reasoned that clearances on IUT basis by the appellant are similar to physical exports. The High Court and Tribunal decisions supported the eligibility of refund for deemed exports. The Commissioner (A) upheld the refund based on these precedents. The Tribunal affirmed the impugned order, dismissing all 5 appeals of the Revenue.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the Order-in-Appeal allowing the refund of CENVAT credit for deemed exports, citing precedents equating deemed exports with physical exports. The department's appeals were dismissed based on the legal interpretation of Rule 5 and the equivalence of deemed exports to physical exports.