9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (9) TMI 883 - AT - Central ExciseRefund claim - exports made were not under Bond or letter of undertaking as required under Notification No. 5/2006-CE(NT) dated 14.03.2006 issued under Rules of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - clearance of goods under Notification No. 108/95-CE dated 28.08.2005 and 06/2006-CE dated 01.03.2006 as deemed export - Held that - in view of various case laws of Hon ble Supreme Court, High Court and Tribunal, the appellant is entitled to the benefit of refund of unutilized cenvat credit as the supplies made by them to a Project financed by World Bank under International Competitive Bidding is deemed export under the provisions of para 8.3 of the Import-Export Policy 2004-09. The condition in the Notification No. 5/2006-CE(NT) dated 14.3.2006 that the goods have to be cleared under bond or under letter of undertaking will not make difference in the case of deemed exports made by the appellant. Once it is clear that the supplies made by the appellant are in the nature of deemed exports, they would be entitled to the benefit of entitlement to the cash refund of the cenvat credit amount lying unutilized in their said account. - Decided in favour of appellant with consequential relief
Issues:
Refund claim rejection for exports not under Bond or letter of undertaking as required under Notification No. 5/2006-CE(NT) dated 14.03.2006. Analysis: The appellant, M/s Indira Marshall Oil Engines, appealed against the rejection of a refund claim of ?57,71,500 by the Commissioner(Appeals) due to exports not being made under Bond or letter of undertaking as mandated by Notification No. 5/2006-CE(NT) dated 14.03.2006 under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The appellant contended that their clearances under Notification No. 108/95-CE dated 28.08.2005 and 06/2006-CE dated 01.03.2006 were deemed exports, supported by case laws such as Commr. of Central Excise vs. Shilpa Copper Wire Industries (2011), Virlon Textile Mills ltd. vs. C.C.E. Mumbai (2007), and Western Cans P. Ltd. vs. C.C.E. Mumbai I (2011). The appellant argued that the supplies to a project financed by the World Bank under International Competitive Bidding qualify as deemed exports under the Import-Export Policy, 2004-09, entitling them to benefits equivalent to physical exports. Citing case laws like C.C.E. vs. Metflow Cast Pvt. Ltd. (2016), the Tribunal acknowledged that deemed exports are on par with physical exports, allowing the appellant to claim the refund of unutilized cenvat credit despite not clearing goods under bond or letter of undertaking as per the Notification No. 5/2006-CE(NT) dated 14.3.2006. The Tribunal, after reviewing the case laws and submissions, concluded that the appellant is eligible for the refund as the supplies to the World Bank project qualify as deemed exports under para 8.3 of the Import-Export Policy 2004-09. It emphasized that the condition of clearing goods under bond or letter of undertaking does not affect deemed exports. The Tribunal directed the Revenue to allow the refund of unutilized cenvat credit amount within two months, considering the undisputed facts on record. In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, granting them the refund of unutilized cenvat credit amount for the exports made to a project financed by the World Bank under International Competitive Bidding, categorizing them as deemed exports eligible for benefits similar to physical exports under the Import-Export Policy, 2004-09.
|
