2011 (6) TMI 426 - AT - Central Excise

Refund claims - Revenue contented that there was likelihood that no credit would have been taken on the inputs as the exports were made against the advance licence have been rightly disregarded by the Commissioner (Appeals) - Held that - It is not being disputed that the respondents have exported the final product and they were entitled to credit taken by them and that the credit was accumulated in view of the export, no ground raised claiming that there is any wide variation between the credit actually taken and the credit that would be available if sion norms were to be applied, appeal in favour of the assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Department's appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) upholding refund claims sanctioned to the respondent.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, DELHI was filed by the department challenging the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) which upheld the refund claims sanctioned to the respondent, a manufacturer of poly propylene filament yarn exporting the final product. The department contended that the original authority did not ensure compliance with Notification No.5/2006-CE (NT) condition No.4 regarding refund payment procedure. Additionally, it was argued that the respondent might not have taken credit due to exports under the advance license scheme. The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed these claims, leading to the department's appeal against the favorable findings for the assessee by both the original authority and the Commissioner (Appeals).

During the hearing, the department reiterated its grounds of appeal and referred to Board's Circular No.84/88, emphasizing input/output implementation under Rule 191-B for articles covered by intermediate licensing. On the other hand, the respondent's advocate strongly supported the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision, highlighting that only actual credits corresponding to the quarters in question were refunded by the original authority, a decision rightly upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals).

The Appellate Tribunal, after considering submissions from both sides and reviewing the records, found that the Commissioner (Appeals) correctly disregarded the department's argument that no credit would have been taken on inputs due to exports under the advance license scheme. The Tribunal noted that the original authority's order quantified input credit for exported goods in the relevant quarters, and there was no challenge to this finding in the review order or the grounds of appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal emphasized that there was no evidence to support the department's claim of excess credit refund beyond what was attributable to exports during the quarters in question.

Furthermore, it was established that the respondents were entitled to the credit accumulated through exports, and there was no discrepancy between the actual credit taken and what would be available under sion norms. The Tribunal dismissed the relevance of the Board's circular related to Rule 191-B in the context of the case. Ultimately, the Tribunal found no valid grounds to interfere with the concurrent favorable findings for the assessee by the lower authorities, leading to the rejection of the appeal.

In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) and rejected the department's appeal, emphasizing the lack of substantial grounds for interference with the favorable findings for the assessee.