2007 (6) TMI 87 - AT - Central Excise

Refund Revenue contended that respondent is not entitle for refund on the ground that he has not proved that they could not utilize the amount of Cenvat credit, for goods cleared for home consumption Held that revenue contention was not sustainable and allowed refund

Summary

Issues involved:
Refund of Cenvat credit for exported goods; Compliance with Notification No. 11/2002; Export through a third party affecting refund eligibility.

Analysis:
The case revolved around the refund claim for the amount of Cenvat credit utilized in manufacturing goods that were eventually exported. The adjudicating authority initially rejected the refund claim, citing the respondents' failure to prove their inability to utilize the credit for goods cleared for home consumption and non-compliance with Notification No. 11/2002. The issue of refund was deemed to involve procedural aspects, with the onus on the respondent to demonstrate eligibility. However, it was established that the respondents had indeed exported consignments manufactured using the input for which the refund was claimed, and had adhered to the requirements of Notification No. 11/2002 by filing refund claims quarterly. The respondents had also clearly indicated that the Cenvat credit balance could not be utilized by them, which was overlooked by the adjudicating authority.

The Commissioner (Appeals) further examined the case and noted that although the goods were exported through a third party, the manufacturer should still be entitled to the refund of Cenvat credit on inputs used in manufacturing the export goods. The Commissioner's decision was supported by previous judgments indicating that even if goods are exported through merchant exporters, the manufacturer remains eligible for the refund. This interpretation aligned with the provisions of Notification No. 11/92, signifying substantial compliance with the prescribed procedures.

In light of the above findings and the well-reasoned decision by the Commissioner (Appeals), the appeal filed by the Revenue was ultimately rejected. The judgment emphasized the importance of adherence to procedural requirements and the eligibility of manufacturers for Cenvat credit refunds, even in cases of export through third parties.