2015 (5) TMI 446 - AT - Central Excise

Refund of unutilized credit - Rule 5 of of CCR, 2002 - exclusion of credit amount on the finished goods lying in stock and also credit on raw materials - Held that - The Rule 5 of CCR, stipulates that where the exporter can claim refund only when not able to utilize the accumulated cenvat credit for payment of domestic clearance. As seen from the above, read with Notification No. 11/2002, the input credit attributable to the goods exported has been correctly worked out to ₹ 39,49,239/-. What is excluded is the input credit involved in the physical stock of inputs and finished goods lying in stock on 31.03.2003. Therefore, the adjudicating authority has correctly sanction the refund amount of ₹ 39,49,239/-. - Decided against the assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Claim for refund of unutilized input credit attributable to exported goods under Rule 5 of CCR, 2002 read with Notification No. 11/2002-CX(NT) dated 01.03.2002.

Analysis:
The appellant filed an appeal against an order restricting their refund claim to a lesser amount than claimed. The appellant, a manufacturer of excisable goods, sought a refund of unutilized input credit related to exported goods. The Assistant Commissioner sanctioned a lower amount than claimed, leading to the present appeal. The appellant argued for the balance amount, citing Notification No. 11/2002. They contended they were eligible for the entire credit related to exports of finished goods, referring to relevant case law. The respondent, however, supported the adjudicating authority's decision, highlighting the appellant's non-appearance during proceedings. The authority justified the sanctioned amount based on calculations excluding certain credits.

The main issue in the appeal was the discrepancy between the claimed refund amount and the amount sanctioned by the adjudicating authority. The authority's decision was based on calculations involving the credit available, debits made, and closing balance of cenvat credit, excluding certain credits related to physical stock of inputs and finished goods. The appellant's argument for the full credit amount was countered by the authority's adherence to Rule 5 of CCR and Notification No. 11/2002. The authority's decision to sanction a specific refund amount was deemed correct, as per the facts of the case, and the appellant's reliance on unrelated case laws was dismissed. Consequently, the impugned order was upheld, and the appeal was dismissed.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the appellant's claim for a refund of unutilized input credit attributable to exported goods. The decision emphasized the importance of adhering to relevant rules and notifications in determining the refund amount. The authority's calculations and exclusion of certain credits were deemed appropriate, leading to the dismissal of the appellant's appeal.