2015 (6) TMI 955 - AT - Service Tax

Refund claim - accumulated Cenvat Credit - whether the appellant, who is SEZ unit are eligible for refund of accumulated Cenvat Credit - Held that - Refund under Rule 5 is admissible to the appellant. The matter was remanded only to examine the claim of the appellant with respect to the time limit involvement and it was also directed that if the refund claim is in time, to sanction the refund in accordance with law. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has gravely mis-understood the order of this Tribunal 2012 (12) TMI 793 - CESTAT, MUMBAI and he has again gone in merit and rejected the claim. Thus Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has gravely erred in understanding findings of this Tribunal s order dated 30/8/2012 in the appellant s own case which clearly applied in the present case and accordingly appellants are entitled for the refund. The impugned order is set aside - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Whether SEZ unit is eligible for refund of accumulated Cenvat Credit for input used in exported output service under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to two appeals challenging the rejection of the appellant's appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals-III) Central Excise, Pune. The primary issue revolves around the eligibility of a SEZ unit for a refund of accumulated Cenvat Credit concerning inputs used in exported output services under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The appellant, represented by Ld. Counsel Prasad Paranjape, argued that a similar issue had been previously decided in their favor by the Tribunal in a prior case. On the contrary, Ld. Asst. Commissioner A.B. Kulgod, representing the Revenue, reiterated the findings of the impugned order.

Upon careful consideration of the submissions and perusal of the record, the judge, Ramesh Nair, noted the previous Tribunal order in the appellant's case (ST/538/2012). The Tribunal had clarified that SEZ units are eligible for a refund of service tax paid if certain conditions are met, such as filing the refund claim within the prescribed time limit and ensuring no unjust enrichment. The judge emphasized that the principle of unjust enrichment did not apply in this case as the output service had been exported. Consequently, the judge set aside the impugned order and remanded the case to the original adjudicating authority for further examination of the refund claim with respect to the time limit, directing the sanction of the refund if the claim was within the stipulated period.

The appellant had produced the Tribunal's judgment before the Commissioner (Appeals), highlighting the Tribunal's clear stance on the admissibility of the refund under Rule 5 to the SEZ unit. The Commissioner (Appeals) misinterpreted the Tribunal's order and rejected the claim on its merits. The judge emphasized that the Tribunal had conclusively held that the refund under Rule 5 was admissible to the appellant and that the matter was remanded solely to assess the time limit aspect. The judge criticized the Commissioner (Appeals) for misunderstanding the Tribunal's order and reiterated that the appellants were entitled to the refund. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeals of the appellants were allowed, with any consequential relief to be granted in accordance with the law.