2017 (6) TMI 39 - AT - Central Excise

100% EOU - refund claim - rejection on the ground that the refund of CENVAT credit can be claimed by the assessee only after adjudication is completed and accordingly refund claim returned being premature - Held that - these two appeals are required to be remanded back to the original authority to decide the refund claims of the appellant keeping in view the earlier order passed in favor of the appellant and also the subsequent order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise as well as the Commissioner of Central Excise - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Eligibility for refund of accumulated CENVAT credit.
2. Prematurity of the refund claim.
3. Adjudication process and previous decisions affecting the refund claim.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Eligibility for refund of accumulated CENVAT credit
The appellants, 100% EOU engaged in manufacturing iron ore products for export, filed refund claims for unutilized CENVAT credit under rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules 2004. The Deputy Commissioner rejected the claims stating eligibility is subject to adjudication via a show-cause notice. The Commissioner(Appeals) upheld this decision. The appellant argued that previous decisions favored them and the eligibility issue was resolved in their favor by the Assistant Commissioner and Commissioner of Central Excise. The Tribunal, after reviewing these decisions, remanded the case to the original authority for reconsideration based on the favorable eligibility determinations.

Issue 2: Prematurity of the refund claim
The Deputy Commissioner deemed the refund claim premature as eligibility for CENVAT credit was under adjudication. The Commissioner(Appeals) agreed, upholding the rejection of the refund claim. The appellant contended that previous decisions supported their eligibility, and the eligibility issue was resolved in their favor by subsequent orders. The Tribunal, considering these arguments and the favorable eligibility determinations, set aside the impugned order and remanded the case for the adjudicating authority to decide the refund claims after due process.

Issue 3: Adjudication process and previous decisions affecting the refund claim
The appellant argued that the impugned order did not consider the facts and binding judicial precedents favoring them. They highlighted previous decisions where refund claims were sanctioned in their favor. The Tribunal acknowledged these arguments, especially the favorable eligibility determinations made by the Assistant Commissioner and Commissioner of Central Excise. Consequently, the Tribunal remanded the appeals to the original authority for a fresh decision, considering the earlier favorable orders and due process requirements.

In conclusion, the Tribunal remanded the appeals back to the original authority for reconsideration of the refund claims in light of the favorable eligibility determinations made in previous decisions and after following due process of law. The impugned order was set aside, emphasizing the need for a thorough review based on the established eligibility of the appellant for CENVAT credit.