9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (5) TMI 557 - AT - Central ExciseRefund claim - deemed export - accumulated cenvat credit lying untilised in their cenvat credit account on the ground that they have made clearances to various mega projects/100% EOUs and cleared the goods to merchant exporter against CT-1 - denial mainly on the ground that the respondent has not executed bond for the export of goods the refund is to be rejected - Held that - as per procedure laid down under N/N. 5/2006 ibid there is no condition on the manufacturer who cleared the goods to merchant exporter against the CT-1 certificate to execute any bond therefore we do not find any merit in the Revenue s appeal - the Respondent is entitled for refund claims for the cenvat credit contained in the goods cleared to merchant exporter against CT-1 certificate - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
Issues:
Refund claims under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 for accumulated cenvat credit, rejection of refund claims by adjudicating authority, appeal before Ld. Commissioner (A), stay application by Revenue, non-compliance with Notification No. 5/2006-CE, relevant documents for refund claim, contrary views of High Courts, admissibility of refund claims for clearances to 100% EOUs, mega projects, and merchant exporter against CT-1 certificates. Analysis: The case involves the appeal by Revenue against the rejection of refund claims filed by the respondent under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The respondent, engaged in manufacturing wires & cables, sought refund of accumulated cenvat credit for clearances to mega projects/100% EOUs and merchant exporters against CT-1. The Ld. Commissioner (A) allowed the refund claim, leading to the Revenue's application for a stay of the order. The Revenue contended non-compliance with Notification No. 5/2006-CE and lack of essential documents for the refund claim, citing contrary decisions of High Courts. Conversely, the respondent argued that the refund claims were admissible based on the decision of the High Court of Gujarat in a similar case. The Tribunal noted that the refund claims were for unutilized cenvat credit for clearances to 100% EOUs, mega projects, and merchant exporters against CT-1 certificates. The Revenue's objections based on contrary High Court decisions were deemed contrary to law. The Tribunal referred to a decision by the High Court of Karnataka, affirming the admissibility of such refund claims. The Tribunal highlighted that the issue of clearances to 100% EOUs and mega projects had already attained finality based on previous judgments, leading to the affirmation of the Ld. Commissioner (A)'s decision to allow the refund claims. Regarding clearances to merchant exporters against CT-1 certificates, the Ld. Commissioner (A) observed that the necessary bond could be executed by the merchant exporter as per Notification No. 42/2001-CE (NT). The Tribunal concurred, finding no merit in the Revenue's appeal as there was no requirement for the manufacturer to execute a bond in such cases. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the Ld. Commissioner (A)'s decision to allow the refund claims for cenvat credit contained in goods cleared to merchant exporters against CT-1 certificates. The impugned order was upheld, and the stay application along with the Revenue's appeal were dismissed.
|
