2016 (12) TMI 386 - AT - Central Excise

Refund claim - N/N. 17/2009-ST dated 07.07.2009 - export of goods - whether the rejection of refund claim on the ground that the appellant had availed CENVAT credit of the specified services used for export, is justified? - Held that - the appellant had not specifically brought out on record that during the relevant period they had complied with the condition of the notification by not availing the CENVAT credit on input services - Accordingly, I do not see any discrepancy in the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). In the result, the appeals being devoid of merit are dismissed - decided against appellant-assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against rejection of refund claims under Notification No. 17/2009-ST for exported goods due to availing CENVAT credit on specified services.

Analysis:
The case involved three appeals filed against the rejection of refund claims under Notification No. 17/2009-ST for exported goods. The appellant had filed refund claims for specific amounts, but show cause notices were issued proposing rejection due to availing CENVAT credit on specified services used for export. The refund claims were rejected after adjudication, leading to appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) who also upheld the rejection. The main issue was the compliance with the condition of the notification by not availing CENVAT credit on input services during the relevant period.

During the proceedings, the Authorized Representative for the Revenue argued that the appellant failed to demonstrate compliance with the condition of Notification No. 17/2009-ST by availing CENVAT credit on taxable services during the relevant period for goods exported. The Commissioner (Appeals) specifically found that the appellant did not meet the notification's condition, leading to the rejection of the appeals. The Member (Judicial) agreed with the Revenue's argument, stating that there was no discrepancy in the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order. Consequently, the appeals were deemed devoid of merit and dismissed.

In conclusion, the judgment upheld the rejection of the refund claims due to the appellant's failure to comply with the condition of Notification No. 17/2009-ST by availing CENVAT credit on specified services used for export. The appeals were dismissed based on the findings that the appellant did not meet the necessary requirements for the refund claims under the notification.