2015 (9) TMI 41 - AT - Central Excise

Denial of refund claim - Refund of accumulated cenvat credit - Export of goods it has been alleged that documents have not been produced for verification but the fact is that all documents were produced to the Superintendent who verified the documents and submitted the report to the Assistant Commissioner. - Held that - Decision in the case of assessee s own previous case followed - Decided in favour of assessee.

Issues Involved:
Refund claims under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 for export of goods without payment of duty. Allegation of failure to produce documents for verification and non-appearance for personal hearing. Interpretation of provisions of Rule 5 and Notification 5/2006-CE(NT) dated 14.3.2006. Dispute over one-to-one correlation of duty paid inputs and exported goods. Claim of rebate in respect of duty paid on exported goods under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002.

Analysis:

1. Common Issue and Previous Decision:
The Tribunal noted that the issue in all four cases regarding refund claims under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules is common and was previously addressed in the appellant's own case through an earlier order. The Revenue alleged non-production of documents and non-appearance for personal hearing, which the appellant contested by stating that all necessary documents were submitted to the Superintendent for verification.

2. Interpretation of Rule 5 and Notification 5/2006-CE(NT):
The dispute revolved around the interpretation of Rule 5 and Notification 5/2006-CE(NT) dated 14.3.2006. The appellants argued that they complied with the provisions by showing one-to-one correlation batchwise for duty paid inputs used in manufacturing goods exported under bond. The Revenue contended that the appellants should have cleared final products on payment of duty due to sufficient cenvat credit balance, which the appellants refuted by providing evidence of compliance with the rules.

3. One-to-One Correlation Dispute:
The lower authorities rejected the refund claims citing a lack of one-to-one correlation between duty paid inputs and exported goods. However, the appellants maintained that they provided batch-wise evidence of input usage in manufacturing exported goods, which demonstrated compliance with the requirements of Rule 5 and the notification. The Tribunal found merit in the appellant's contentions and set aside the impugned orders.

4. Rebate Claim under Rule 18:
The Revenue objected to the appellants claiming rebate for duty paid on exported goods, arguing that it contradicted the inability to utilize accumulated cenvat credit as per Rule 5. The Tribunal clarified that Rule 18 allows rebate for duty paid on exported goods, while Rule 5 pertains to refund of accumulated cenvat credit for goods exported under bond when unable to utilize the credit. The Tribunal upheld the appellant's position and allowed the appeals.

5. Previous Decision Precedence:
After reviewing the orders-in-original and the Commissioner (Appeals) decision, the Tribunal found that the issues raised were already addressed in a previous decision, leading to the allowance of all four appeals based on the previous ruling's coverage. The Tribunal reiterated the applicability of the earlier decision to the present cases, resulting in the allowance of the appeals.

This detailed analysis highlights the key legal interpretations, disputes, and resolutions involved in the judgment regarding refund claims under the Cenvat Credit Rules, emphasizing the importance of compliance with the rules and providing sufficient evidence to support claims.

← Previous Next →