2018 (2) TMI 1769 - HC - Central Excise

Refund of CENVAT Credit - Whether the Ld. CESTAT was correct in allowing the refund of Cenvat credit of Central Excise duty paid in respect of raw material procured from DTA Units under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 to the assessee and thereby misinterpreting the said provision? - Held that - The Tribunal has rightly considered the amount which was not required to be paid and is required to be refunded - there are no substantial question of law arising in this appeal - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to Tribunal's order allowing refund of Cenvat credit for duty paid on raw materials procured from DTA units under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.

Analysis:
The department challenged the Tribunal's order dismissing their appeal, questioning the correctness of allowing the refund of Cenvat credit for Central Excise duty paid on raw materials procured from DTA Units. The appellant relied on a Karnataka High Court decision upheld by the Supreme Court, establishing that Export Oriented Units (EOUs) can claim Cenvat credit on duty for inputs procured domestically and are eligible for a refund under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The respondent-assessee, engaged in exporting products without duty payment, procured articles from a domestic unit and sought a refund due to minimal domestic clearances, which rendered the Cenvat credit unusable.

The Assessing Officer (AO) cited a DGFT Circular to argue against the refund, stating that goods supplied to EOUs by domestic units are initially exempt from excise duties. The AO contended that the DTA unit should have availed the available exemption instead of paying excise duty and seeking a refund. However, the appellate authority noted that the appellant was involved in manufacturing and exporting goods, focusing on whether a 100% EOU can claim Cenvat credit for duty paid on inputs from a DTA unit and be eligible for a refund under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.

The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing that the Tribunal correctly considered the amount that was not required to be paid and should be refunded. Consequently, the Court found no substantial question of law in the appeal and dismissed it, affirming the Tribunal's order to allow the refund of Cenvat credit under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.