9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (4) TMI 1216 - AT - Central Excise100% EOU - refund claim - the cenvat credit on the inputs remains unutilized due to the exports - Held that; - the adjudicating authority as well as the first appellate authority have gone into the factual matrix of the case, all the records which were produced and came to a conclusion that the respondent could not have utilized cenvat credit as they are a 100% EOU - the first appellate authority has relied upon the CBEC circular No.120/01/2010-ST dated 19.1.2010 as also the interpretation of N/N. 5/2006-CE, to hold that there is no requirement of one-to-one correlation of the goods manufactured or exported - appeal rejected - decided against Revenue.
Issues:
Refund claims filed by respondent on cenvat credit for inputs used in goods for export. Analysis: The appeals by Revenue concern refund claims on cenvat credit for inputs used in goods for export by a 100% EOU. The respondent procured inputs with paid central excise duty and filed refund claims due to unutilized cenvat credit. The adjudicating authority and first appellate authority sanctioned the refunds after verification. Revenue contended that inputs were not consumed for exports, but the authorities found otherwise. The first appellate authority relied on CBEC circular and Notification No.5/2006-CE, emphasizing no one-to-one correlation requirement for manufactured or exported goods. The first appellate authority's findings were crucial, indicating proper correlation of documents and refund quantification based on actual usage of inputs in final products. The Asstt. Commissioner verified refund claims against ER-2 returns and ensured direct use of inputs in manufacturing. The lower adjudicating authority concluded that the inputs satisfied conditions for refund under Notification 5/06-CE(NT). Specific observations on unutilized credit and excess refund were detailed in the orders, showing meticulous examination of conditions. Based on factual findings and thorough verification by lower authorities, the appeals by Revenue lacked merit as facts were not disputed. The judgments upheld the refund claims due to proper substantiation and compliance with relevant regulations. The appeals were consequently rejected, affirming the decisions of the lower authorities.
|
