2016 (1) TMI 107 - AT - Central Excise

100% EOU - filing of more than one refund claims per quarter - claim for refund of the accumulated CENVAT credit on input services - scope of the revenue s contention beyond the period of limitation - Held that - The said issue was settled at the level of the Commissioner (Appeals) vide his orders accepting the assessee s appeals, which were also reviewed and found to be correct. It was in consequence to the said orders that the Assistant Commissioner and Commissioner (Appeals) passed the present impugned orders allowing the appeals. As such, it was not open to the Revenue to enlarge the scope of the proceedings by including some fresh grounds in their memorandum of appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) or in the memorandum of appeal before the Tribunal. Even though it is the case of assessee that no common CENVATable services were used by them and even though I find that the Revenue in their memorandum of appeals have not referred to any such services, the appeals of the Revenue can be disposed on the sole ground of being beyond the earlier proceedings i.e. the show-cause notice, the earlier orders of the Assistant Commissioner as also the earlier orders of the Commissioner(Appeals) attaining finality. - Decided against the revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Filing of multiple refund claims per quarter.
2. Eligibility of a 100% EOU for CENVAT credit.
3. Dispute over availing common CENVATable services for different units.

Analysis:
1. The judgment addresses the issue of filing multiple refund claims per quarter by a 100% EOU. The appellant, an EOU, filed refund claims for accumulated CENVAT credit. Initially, the Revenue objected to the multiple claims per quarter, but the Commissioner (Appeals) ruled in favor of the appellant, allowing the refund claims. The Revenue subsequently tried to introduce new grounds for appeal, but the Tribunal held that it was beyond the scope of the earlier proceedings and dismissed the appeals.

2. The judgment also discusses the eligibility of a 100% EOU for CENVAT credit on tax paid for input services. The appellant, being a 100% EOU, availed the benefit of CENVAT credit. Despite the Revenue's objections and subsequent reviews, the Tribunal found that the appellant was entitled to the refund claims as per the CENVAT Credit Rules. The Tribunal emphasized that the Revenue could not expand the scope of the proceedings beyond the settled issues.

3. Another issue addressed in the judgment is the dispute over the appellant availing common CENVATable services for different units. The Revenue alleged that the appellant used common services for both EOU and DTA units, but the Tribunal noted that such services were not mentioned in the Revenue's appeals. The Tribunal emphasized that the appeals could only be considered based on the earlier proceedings and the grounds already established, ultimately rejecting all three appeals by the Revenue.

In conclusion, the judgment resolves the issues related to refund claims, eligibility of a 100% EOU for CENVAT credit, and the alleged use of common CENVATable services by different units. The Tribunal upheld the decisions favoring the appellant based on the settled proceedings and dismissed the Revenue's appeals for attempting to introduce new grounds beyond the established scope.