2016 (7) TMI 653 - AT - Central Excise

Claim of refund after surrender of registration certificate - un-utilized cenvat credit - export of goods - Held that - there is no express prohibition in terms of Rule 5 - refund allowed - Decided in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Denial of refund of unutilized cenvat credit balance after closure of business
- Interpretation of Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004
- Applicability of judicial precedents in similar cases

Issue 1: Denial of refund of unutilized cenvat credit balance after closure of business

The appellant, a Private Limited Company engaged in manufacturing and exporting goods, applied for a refund of the cenvat credit balance unutilized in their account after closing their manufacturing operations. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the refund application, leading to the present appeal. The appellant argued that the denial was based on technicalities and not in accordance with the law or judicial decisions. The appellant cited various judgments supporting their claim, emphasizing that the closure of the factory and coming out of the modvat scheme entitled them to the refund. The Tribunal noted that the jurisdictional High Court had allowed the refund of unutilized cenvat credit under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004, a decision affirmed by the Supreme Court. In light of this, the Tribunal set aside the impugned judgment and allowed the appeal of the appellant.

Issue 2: Interpretation of Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004

The Tribunal examined Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004, which allows the utilization of cenvat credit for duty payment or service tax. The rule also provides for a refund in cases where adjustment is not possible, subject to specified conditions. The appellant's case involved the closure of their manufacturing operations, leading to unutilized cenvat credit. The Tribunal noted that the rule does not expressly prohibit refunds in such circumstances. Citing the judgment of the jurisdictional High Court and the Supreme Court, the Tribunal held that the denial of the refund was not sustainable in law. The Tribunal's analysis focused on the applicability of Rule 5 and the absence of any prohibition on refunds in cases of factory closure.

Issue 3: Applicability of judicial precedents in similar cases

The Tribunal considered various judicial decisions cited by both parties to support their arguments. The appellant relied on judgments affirming the refund of unutilized cenvat credit in cases of factory closure and coming out of the modvat scheme. Notably, the Tribunal highlighted the decision of the jurisdictional High Court, which was upheld by the Supreme Court, allowing such refunds. In contrast, the authorities cited by the respondent AR were deemed inapplicable to the present case based on the established legal principles and precedents. The Tribunal emphasized the consistency of decisions across different fora in allowing refunds in similar circumstances, reinforcing the appellant's entitlement to the refund. Ultimately, the Tribunal set aside the impugned judgment and ruled in favor of the appellant, ensuring the application of established legal principles and precedents in the matter.