2017 (4) TMI 23 - AT - Central Excise

Refund claim - Rule 5 of CCR, 2004 - denial on account of nexus - Held that - issue has been settled by this Tribunal in the case of Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Raigad 2014 (11) TMI 577 - CESTAT MUMBAI , where it was held that no one to one correlation is required for claim refund under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 for refund of unutilized Cenvat Credit on account of export of goods - refund allowed. The availment of Cenvat Credit has not been challenged by the Revenue in that circumstances without denying Cenvat Credit, refund claim filed by the appellant cannot be objected. Refund allowed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against refund claim allowed under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
- Challenge on the grounds of one-to-one correlation of input/services in export, eligibility of Cenvat Credit, and calculation errors for refund of input services.

Analysis:
- The respondent, a manufacturer of excisable goods, filed a refund claim under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, for unutilized credit. The Adjudicating Authority rejected part of the claim, but the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) allowed it. Revenue appealed on grounds of lack of one-to-one correlation of input/services in export, ineligibility of Cenvat Credit, and calculation errors for refund of input services.
- The Tribunal referred to precedent (Bombay Dyeing case) stating no one-to-one correlation is needed for refund claims. The Tribunal emphasized that the use of imported goods for manufacturing exported goods is reasonable, and actual use of imported goods in exported goods is not mandatory.
- The Tribunal noted that the Revenue did not challenge the availment of Cenvat Credit, so the refund claim cannot be objected. Precedents were cited to support admissibility of invoices in the name of the head office and eligibility of Cenvat Credit for services like CHA. The Tribunal also found that the minor disputed amount for input services credit was not contested by the respondent.
- The Tribunal denied a portion of the refund claim due to a minor amount in dispute but confirmed the rest sanctioned by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals). The appeal was disposed of accordingly.

This judgment clarifies that one-to-one correlation is not required for refund claims under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, and highlights the importance of not challenging Cenvat Credit availment. It also emphasizes the admissibility of certain credits and services, ultimately confirming most of the refund claim while denying a small portion.