2016 (2) TMI 866 - AT - Central Excise

Refund under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 - denial of refund credit on input service used in relation to the manufacturing of the said goods - Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the claim - Held that - In our considered view, while the Adjudicating Authority allowed the input credit on the exported goods, there should not be different yardstick to establish nexus input service and export goods. In the instant case, there is no material available on record that the input service were not used for the export of goods. In view of the above discussions, we do not find any reason to interfere the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). - Decided against revenue

Summary

Issues:
Refund of Cenvat Credit under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 for exported goods.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed by Revenue against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) granting a refund of Rs. 15,25,899 under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004. The respondent exported Polyester Texturised Yarn (PTY) under bond without duty payment from April 2007 to June 2007 and claimed a refund of Rs. 7,02,67,250. The Adjudicating authority approved a refund of Rs. 6,87,41,351 but rejected the balance amount of Rs. 15,25,899 representing unutilized cenvat credit on input service. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal for the balance amount.

The main grievance raised by the Revenue's Authorized Representative was that the unutilized credit of input service amounting to Rs. 15,25,899 was not admissible as the input services were not directly used in the manufacturing of goods exported. The contention was that the assessee did not export taxable service and the input services lacked direct utilization in the manufacture of exported goods.

The Tribunal disagreed with the Revenue's argument, citing Notification No. 5/2006.CE(NT) and a circular by the Central Board of Excise and Customs. These documents clarified that the refund of Cenvat Credit should be allowed for input or input service used in or in relation to the manufacture of the final product cleared for export under bond. The Tribunal emphasized the need to interpret the phrase "used in" in a harmonious manner.

The Tribunal observed that while the Adjudicating Authority approved the input credit on the exported goods, there should not be a different standard to establish the nexus between input service and export goods. It was noted that there was no evidence to suggest that the input service was not utilized for the export of goods. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) order, rejecting the Revenue's appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, finding no reason to interfere with the Commissioner (Appeals) decision, as the input service was deemed to have been used in relation to the manufacturing of the exported goods.