Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2016 (11) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2016 (11) TMI 578 - AT - Central Excise


Issues: Refund of unutilised CENVAT credit for various services under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules - Deemed export - Rejection of refund claim for certain services - Requirement of producing documents for quantification.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, a 100% EOU manufacturing pharmaceutical products, filed a refund claim under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules for unutilised CENVAT credit towards export and other input services during January 2012 to March 2012. The adjudicating authority partially rejected the claim, alleging that certain input services were not directly used in manufacturing the final product or providing output services. The rejection included the claim related to Inter Unit Transfer clearances without export details. The first appellate authority further rejected the refund claim for specific services, resulting in a total rejection of a significant amount. The appellant then appealed against this decision.

2. During the hearing, the appellant's counsel argued that Inter Unit Transfer from one EOU to another is deemed export, and the rejection of credit related to this is unjustified. The counsel also contended that the rejected services were indeed used in or in relation to the business, citing supportive judgments. It was emphasized that there is no explicit requirement to provide proof of exports between EOUs under the Central Excise Act or CENVAT Credit Rules.

3. The learned AR acknowledged that deemed exports are considered for refunds but highlighted discrepancies in the documents provided by the appellant regarding deemed exports. The AR suggested remanding the matter to the original authority for further verification and document submission to establish deemed export transactions accurately.

4. The Tribunal analyzed the services in question, including legal consultancy, management, maintenance, repair, project management consultancy, and erection, commissioning, and installation services. While acknowledging that these services fall within the definition of input services, the Tribunal stressed the need for the appellant to produce sufficient documentation to prove their direct use in the business for quantification purposes.

5. Ultimately, the Tribunal allowed the appeal by remanding the case to the original authority. Deemed exports were equated with physical exports, and the appellant was directed to provide necessary documents for quantification related to certain services. The original authority was instructed to resolve the matter within three months after giving the appellant an opportunity to present the required documentation.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues of refund claims, deemed exports, rejection of specific services, and the importance of producing documents for quantification in a comprehensive manner.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates