2015 (10) TMI 419 - AT - Central Excise

Denial of Refund claim - Refund of unutilized CENVAT Credit - whether the appellants are eligible for refund claim of the unutilized credit under Rule5 of CCR - Held that - Appellants cleared the goods to various garment manufacturers/exporters based on the certificate issued by the jurisdictional Asst. Commissioner of the garment manufacturer under Notification No. 43/2001. - even though the appellant is not an exporter but the goods were cleared under the notification No. 43/2001, which is intended for manufacture of garments and for export out of India, they are eligible for refund under Rule 5 of CCR. By relying this Tribunal s Final Order 2013 (11) TMI 1028 - CESTAT CHENNAI , I hold that the appellants are eligible for refund of unutilized cenvat credit under Rule 5 of CCR. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim rejection based on lack of export documents.

Analysis:
The appeal concerns the rejection of a refund claim by the Commissioner (Appeals) under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002, for unutilized cenvat credit for the period 2004-05. The appellant, a fabric manufacturer, claimed refund but faced rejection for not submitting proof of export documents and sufficient evidence. The appellant argued that they supply fabrics to garment manufacturers under specific notification conditions, allowing duty-free procurement for export by the garment manufacturers. The appellant contended that since they are not the direct exporter, they are not obligated to provide export documents. They provided a letter from a garment manufacturer certifying the export of fabrics and non-claiming of duty draw-back, supported by relevant case laws.

The respondent, however, upheld the rejection citing non-fulfillment of conditions specified under notification No. 43/2001 and Rule 5 of CCR, emphasizing the lack of export documents as a basis for ineligibility for the refund. The respondent relied on a Supreme Court judgment to support their stance.

Upon review, the Tribunal analyzed whether the appellants were eligible for the refund claim under Rule 5 of CCR. It was noted that the appellants supplied goods to garment manufacturers based on certification by the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner, complying with notification No. 43/2001 for duty-free procurement and export. The Tribunal highlighted that the conditions under the notification were met, and the goods were ultimately exported by the garment manufacturers. The Tribunal emphasized that the specific condition requiring export documents did not apply to the appellant as they were not direct exporters but supplied goods for export by the garment manufacturers.

The Tribunal referred to previous decisions where similar issues were resolved in favor of the appellants, emphasizing that eligibility for refund under Rule 5 of CCR was upheld despite not being direct exporters. Relying on precedent, the Tribunal concluded that the appellants were indeed eligible for the refund of unutilized cenvat credit. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.