2016 (9) TMI 581 - AT - Central Excise

Refund claim - service tax paid on input services for the period of 01.04.2005 to 30.09.2006, which were used for manufacture and export of final products viz., Soyabean De-oiled cakes and Soya Floor - appellant had not exported the goods under LUT or bond - final product being exempted from payment of Central Excise duty - Held that - the issue involved in this case is squarely covered by the judgment of Hon ble Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of CCE Vs. Drish Shoes Ltd. 2010 (5) TMI 334 - HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT . With regard to execution of Bond/LUT under the Central Excise Rules, 2002, it is found that the Tribunal in the case of Jolly Board Ltd. Vs. CCE, Aurangabad 2014 (3) TMI 124 - CESTAT MUMBAI has held that such non-execution is only a procedural lapse, for which refund benefit cannot be denied. It has further been held that if the goods are exempted, there is no requirement of execution of Bond/LUT. Therefore, in view of the same, the impugned order is set aside. - Decided in favour of appellant

Summary

Issues:
Refund of service tax on input services for manufacturing and exporting exempted goods, requirement of execution of Bond/LUT, availability of Cenvat credit on inputs for exempted goods, applicability of Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules.

Analysis:
The case involved the appellant, a manufacturer-exporter of Soyabean De-oiled cakes and Soya Floor, exempted from Central Excise duty, who filed refund applications for service tax paid on input services used for manufacturing and exporting final products during a specific period. The refund applications were initially rejected on various grounds, including the lack of export under LUT or bond, ineligibility for Cenvat credit on inputs for exempted goods, and the argument that Cenvat credit of service tax on disputed services was outside the Cenvat statute's purview, making refund impermissible under Rule 5 of the rules.

The appellant argued that execution of Bond/LUT was a procedural requirement and unnecessary since the goods were duty-exempt. They relied on a Tribunal decision and a High Court judgment to support their position that the embargo under Rule 6 did not apply to export goods, making them eligible for service tax refund under Rule 5 despite the final product's exemption from duty. The Revenue, represented by the ld. DR, reiterated the findings of the impugned order.

Upon examination, the Tribunal found that the issue was settled by a High Court judgment, which affirmed the eligibility of an assessee manufacturing nil duty goods to avail Cenvat credit on inputs used in such goods if exported. The Tribunal also referenced a previous case to support the view that non-execution of Bond/LUT was a procedural lapse not justifying denial of refund benefits, especially when goods were exempted. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the impugned order had no merit, setting it aside and allowing the appeal with the consequential benefit of refund.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision was based on the settled legal position that allowed the appellant's claim for service tax refund on input services used for manufacturing and exporting exempted goods, disregarding the requirement of executing Bond/LUT and affirming the availability of Cenvat credit on inputs for such goods under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules.