2015 (9) TMI 100 - AT - Service Tax

Claim for refund Fulfilment of conditions prescribed in CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 Appellant claimed refund but show-cause notice was issued proposing rejection of said refund on ground that documents submitted by them failed to fulfil conditions prescribed in CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004(CCR) and appellants have not been able to show that incidence of duty has not been passed on Held that - in respect of CENVAT credit refund, there is no need to examine unjust enrichment. - Once the appellant is able to establish that they cannot utilize the credit, it has to be granted in cash. In view of observation made in Fibres & Fabrics International P. Ltd. Vs. CC 2009 (2) TMI 110 - CESTAT Bangalore , Glittek Granites Ltd. Vs. CC 2009 (9) TMI 306 - CESTAT, BANGALORE and Bisazza India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE 2008 (6) TMI 16 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD all said cases directly relate to present issue Therefore, in view of observations made in said cases, it has to be held that appellant is eligible for benefit of refund In absence of specific defects identification, rejection on such ground does not arise Thus, appellants eligible for refund and accordingly appeals are allowed Decided in favour of Appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claims under CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 - Rejection of refund claims - Conditions for refund - Incidence of duty passed on - Eligibility for refund prior to 14/03/2006 - Applicability of Tribunal decisions - Unjust enrichment - Defects in documents.

Analysis:
1. Refund Claims under CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004:
In the case, two appellants filed refund claims under CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The first appellant filed two refund claims totaling &8377; 11,64,684/- and &8377; 1,61,645/- for different periods. The second appellant also filed a refund claim amounting to &8377; 3,29,776/-. Show-cause notices were issued proposing rejection of the refund claims due to failure to fulfill prescribed conditions and inability to show non-passing of duty incidence.

2. Eligibility for Refund Prior to 14/03/2006:
The issue of eligibility for refund prior to 14/03/2006 was raised. The appellant argued that they were eligible for the refund based on Tribunal decisions, emphasizing that examination of unjust enrichment was unnecessary for CENVAT credit refunds. The Tribunal held that the appellant was indeed eligible for the refund based on relevant decisions and distinguished a High Court decision regarding the applicability of a notification post-14/03/2006.

3. Applicability of Tribunal Decisions and Unjust Enrichment:
The Tribunal considered previous decisions cited by the appellant to support their eligibility for the refund. It was noted that the decisions directly related to the issue at hand, affirming the appellant's eligibility. The Tribunal clarified that the issue before the High Court in a specific case did not impact the appellant's eligibility for the refund.

4. Defects in Documents:
The Tribunal addressed the absence of specific defects identified in the documents submitted by the appellants. Since no specific defects were noted, the rejection of the refund claims on such grounds was deemed unwarranted.

5. Final Decision:
After thorough consideration of submissions, the Tribunal concluded that the appellants were indeed eligible for the refund. Consequently, both appeals were allowed, with any consequential relief granted to the appellants. The decision highlighted the importance of adherence to prescribed conditions and the applicability of relevant legal precedents in determining refund eligibility under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.