2014 (12) TMI 492 - AT - Central Excise

Denial of refund claim - Clearance to 100% EOU - Deemed export or Physical - Held that - refund of CENVAT credit availed on inputs used in the manufacture of goods cleared by DTA units to 100% EOUs would be available and it can not be denied on the ground that it was a case of deemed export - Following decision of CCE & C Vs NBM Industries 2011 (9) TMI 360 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT and CCE Vs Shilpa Copperwire Industries 2010 (2) TMI 711 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT - Stay of operation of refund order denied.

Summary

Issues involved: Stay applications against refund claims allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals) based on the classification of clearances to 100% EOUs as exports for the purpose of consideration of refund claims under Rule 5 of CCR 2004.

Analysis:
1. Issue of Stay Applications: The Revenue sought a stay against the impugned order where the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed refund claims filed within the prescribed time limit by the assessee. The dispute arose regarding the classification of clearances to 100% EOUs as exports for refund claims. The Revenue contended that such clearances cannot be considered exports based on a previous judgment. However, the learned Commissioner relied on decisions by the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat, including CCE & C Vs NBM Industries and CCE Vs Shilpa Copperwire Industries, which held that refunds for CENVAT credit on inputs used in goods cleared to 100% EOUs should be allowed, even in cases of deemed exports. The Commissioner's reliance on these decisions led to the rejection of the stay applications by the Tribunal.

2. Legal Interpretation: The Tribunal noted that the decisions of the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat directly addressed the issue at hand and were applicable to the facts of the case. These decisions emphasized that refund claims for inputs used in goods cleared to 100% EOUs should not be denied on the basis of being deemed exports. The Tribunal found no grounds for granting a stay, as the decisions cited by the Commissioner supported the allowance of such refunds. Consequently, the stay applications were rejected, indicating a clear legal interpretation favoring the assessee's refund claims in this context.

3. Conclusion: The Tribunal consolidated both stay applications due to the similarity of the issue involved, leading to a common order. The decision highlighted the importance of legal precedents set by the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in determining the eligibility of refund claims related to clearances to 100% EOUs. By aligning with the previous judgments, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision to allow the refund claims, emphasizing the legal validity and relevance of the cited precedents in resolving the dispute.