2022 (4) TMI 1430 - AT - Central Excise

Refund of accumulated Cenvat credit - incidence of duties of central excise borne by the Applicants which were not transited to GST regime - HELD THAT - The issue in this case is covered by the decisions of the Tribunal in the case of M/S. ALUMATIC CANS PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CGST KOLHAPUR 2020 (12) TMI 431 - CESTAT MUMBAI and M/S. SOPARIWALA EXPORTS PVT LTD VERSUS C.C.E. S.T. -VADODARA-I 2020 (9) TMI 788 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD where it was held that In the present case admittedly the goods were cleared by the appellant not for physical exports but were cleared by them to their sister concern who is an 100% Export Oriented Unit. Since these goods were not cleared for physical exports by the applicant in view of the definition of export goods as per explanation (1A) inserted in Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 they do not qualify to be included in the export turnover of the appellant for the purpose of computing the refund under rule 5. This early hearing application is allowed and the appeal is listed for final hearing on 05.05.2022.

Summary

Issues:
- Early hearing application for appeal regarding rejection of refund of accumulated Cenvat credit under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004.
- Admissibility of eligible credit of Cenvat Credit and refund of central excise duties not transitioned to GST regime.
- Application referencing Tribunal decisions in Lupin Ltd., Alumatic Cans Pvt. Ltd., and Sopariwala Exports Pvt. Ltd.

Analysis:
1. The applicant filed a miscellaneous application seeking early hearing of the appeal concerning the rejection of a refund of accumulated Cenvat credit amounting to Rs. 35,52,543 under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004. The issue at hand revolves around the admissibility of eligible credit of Cenvat Credit and the refund of central excise duties borne by the applicant that were not transitioned to the GST regime.

2. The applicant argued that the matter is squarely covered by a previous decision of the Tribunal in the case of Lupin Ltd. The applicant's representative, Shri Anil Mishra, Advocate, presented the case, while Shri Sanjay Hasija, Superintendent and Authorized Representative for the Revenue, represented the respondent. The applicant's counsel referenced decisions in the cases of Alumatic Cans Pvt. Ltd. and Sopariwala Exports Pvt. Ltd., indicating consistency in legal interpretation.

3. After hearing both parties, the Member (Technical) allowed the early hearing application. The appeal was scheduled for final hearing on 05.05.2022. The decision to expedite the hearing process demonstrates the Tribunal's commitment to resolving the issues raised by the applicant promptly and efficiently.

4. The Tribunal's decision to grant an early hearing reflects a procedural step towards addressing the complex issues surrounding the admissibility of Cenvat credit and the refund of central excise duties in the context of the transition to the GST regime. By referencing previous decisions and acknowledging the legal precedents set by the Tribunal, the Member (Technical) ensures a consistent and informed approach to resolving the appeal.