9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (1) TMI 15 - AT - Central ExciseRefund - Rule 5 of the CER, 2004 - 100% EOU - instead of utilizing the credit accumulated due to export for DTA clearance, EOU unit claimed refund - Held that - I find that similar issue has came up before the Tribunal in the case of CCE Vs. Motherson Sumi Electric Wires 2009 (5) TMI 498 - CESTAT, BANGALORE wherein it was held that We agree with the learned Commissioner (Appeals) that there is no such requirement under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. We have already reproduced the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals), which is well reasoned. He had also come to the conclusion based on the figures that the respondent is not in a position to utilize the credit availed on inputs used in the manufacture of goods, which were exported under bond and which are getting accumulated from time to time. He has correctly applied Rule 5 of CCR, which provides for sanction of refunding cash in respect of goods exported under bond/letter of undertaking - Appeal allowed.
Issues Involved:
Refund claim under Rule 5 of Central Excise Rules, 2004 for inability to utilize Cenvat Credit by 100% EOU. Analysis: The appeal was against the rejection of a refund claim by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Navi Mumbai, regarding the refund of an amount under Rule 5 of the Central Excise Rules, 2004. The appellant, a 100% EOU, was unable to utilize their Cenvat Credit availed during a specific period. The lower authorities rejected the refund claim citing a notification that mandates the utilization of input credit under Rule 3 before allowing a refund. However, the Tribunal disagreed with the lower authorities, noting that there was no bar on allowing refund of credit of past periods in subsequent quarters. The Tribunal referred to a Circular by CBEC to support its decision, emphasizing that exporters should be permitted a refund from the Cenvat credit availed in previous quarters. The Tribunal also cited a previous case to support its stance that there is no requirement for a one-to-one correlation of inputs with exported goods under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The Tribunal further mentioned that the issue had been settled in previous decisions and that the lower authorities had misdirected their findings in rejecting the refund claim. The Tribunal highlighted that the appellant had utilized inputs for exported goods, and the refund was only in respect of the input credit attributable to those exported goods. It was clarified that the appellant was eligible for the refund claim, and similar views had been upheld by the Tribunal in previous cases. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the impugned order was unsustainable and set it aside, allowing the appeal with consequential relief. In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, emphasizing the eligibility for the refund claim under Rule 5 of the Central Excise Rules, 2004, due to the inability to utilize Cenvat Credit by the 100% EOU. The decision was based on the interpretation of relevant notifications, circulars, and previous legal precedents, which supported the appellant's right to claim the refund.
|
