2017 (5) TMI 1340 - AT - Central Excise

Refund claim - deemed exports - assessee claims that the supplies from DTA to SEZ unit is a deemed export and as good as physical exports - Held that - the Commissioner (A) has allowed the appeal of the assessee by relying on the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Virlon Textile Ltd. vs. CCE 2007 (4) TMI 6 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA wherein it has been held that refund could not be denied on the ground that it was deemed export - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against the Commissioner (A) order allowing the assessee's appeal for refund claims under CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.
- Dispute over whether supplies from DTA to SEZ unit constitute deemed exports.
- Interpretation of the judgment in the case of Virlon Textile Ltd. Vs. CCE regarding refund denial based on deemed export.
- Applicability of Circular No.29/2006-Cus. dated 27.12.2006 on supplies to SEZ units.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed by Revenue against the Commissioner (A) order allowing the assessee's refund claims under CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The assessee, a manufacturer of pre-insulated ducting systems, filed refund claims for two periods in 2013. The Revenue issued show cause notices proposing rejection based on various grounds, including time-barred claims and lack of proof of debit in CENVAT account for export value. The Commissioner (A) rejected the claims, citing time-barred periods and non-submission of relevant documents. The assessee appealed, relying on Circular No.29/2006-Cus. and the Tribunal's decision deeming supplies from DTA to SEZ units as exports.

2. The key issue revolved around whether supplies from DTA to SEZ units should be considered deemed exports. The Revenue contended that the distinction between exports and deemed exports is crucial, while the respondent argued that the Tribunal's decision, affirmed by the Supreme Court, settled the matter in favor of treating such supplies as exports. The Commissioner (A) relied on the Tribunal's judgment in the Virlon Textile Ltd. case, emphasizing that Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules does not differentiate between deemed and physical exports.

3. The Tribunal, after hearing both parties and examining the case records, upheld the Commissioner (A) order. It noted that the Commissioner (A) correctly applied the Virlon Textile Ltd. judgment, stating that refund denial based on deemed export was not valid. The Tribunal highlighted the importance of treating deemed exports on par with physical exports for refund purposes, citing precedents and judicial discipline. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the assessee's entitlement to the refund amount calculated based on the deemed exports.

4. The judgment underscored the significance of judicial decisions in interpreting legal provisions and ensuring consistency in applying rules related to refunds under CENVAT Credit Rules. By aligning with established case law and rejecting the Revenue's appeal, the Tribunal clarified the treatment of deemed exports and upheld the assessee's right to claim refunds for supplies to SEZ units. The ruling emphasized the need for uniformity in considering deemed exports akin to physical exports, thereby providing clarity on the eligibility criteria for refunds under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.