2008 (6) TMI 25 - AT - Central Excise

Appellants had manufactured and exported Granite monuments - claims for refund for the accumulated CENVAT credit - claims were rejected to the extent it represented the credit of tax paid on input service - refund claims in dispute related to the period subsequent to 10-9-2004 - Rule 5 of CCR at the material time empowered the authorities to grant refund of accumulated credit relating to inputs & input services on account of export of final products under bond hence refund is admissible

Summary

Issues:
1. Refund claims rejected for accumulated CENVAT credit of duty paid on input service.
2. Interpretation of Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 regarding refund eligibility.
3. Applicability of Notification No. 23/2004-C.E. (N.T.) dated 10-9-2004 on refund claims post that date.

Analysis:
The appeals were filed by the Revenue against the rejection of refund claims for accumulated CENVAT credit of duty paid on input service by M/s. Himalaya Granites Ltd. The original authority denied the refund to the extent it represented the credit of tax paid on input service, citing Notification No. 11/2002-C.E. (N.T.) dated 1-3-2002, which did not provide for such refund related to input service. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) found that Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 allowed for refund of accumulated CENVAT credit of duty paid on inputs and tax paid on input services. This discrepancy led to the Commissioner allowing the appeals filed by M/s. Himalaya Granites Ltd.

Subsequently, Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 was substituted under Notification No. 23/2004-C.E. (N.T.) dated 10-9-2004. This new rule explicitly stated the conditions under which CENVAT credit in respect of input or input service used in final products cleared for export shall be allowed to be utilized or refunded. The Commissioner (Appeals) noted that the refund claims in question pertained to a period post the amendment, empowering the authorities to grant refund of accumulated CENVAT credit relating to inputs and input services on account of export of final products under bond. Consequently, the Commissioner upheld the refund claims based on the statutory provisions following the amendment.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the Commissioner's decision, dismissing the appeals filed by the Revenue and disposing of the stay applications. The judgment clarified the interpretation of Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and the impact of Notification No. 23/2004-C.E. (N.T.) dated 10-9-2004 on refund eligibility for accumulated CENVAT credit, ultimately upholding the refund claims made by M/s. Himalaya Granites Ltd.