2017 (7) TMI 675 - AT - Central Excise

Refund of accumulated CENVAT credit - denial of refund relying on the decision in the case of COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., KOLKATA-IV Versus BHUSAN LTD. 2008 (6) TMI 194 - CESTAT KOLKATA , where it was held that even if claim is filed within the time-limit is also required to be further examined with reference to N/N. 11 /02-C.E - Held that - the availment of any benefit under a Foreign Trade Policy scheme would not in any way impact upon the entitlement for refund under rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim under CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 based on duty-paid inputs for export products. Interpretation of rule 5 for refund eligibility. Application of Tribunal decisions in refund claim denial. Scope of appellate authority in decision-making. Impact of Foreign Trade Policy on refund claims. Validity of circulars in refund claim decisions.

Analysis:
The case involved a refund claim by M/s Milan Laboratories India Pvt Ltd for accumulated credit on duty-paid inputs used in manufacturing export products. The original authority had sanctioned the refund under rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. However, on appeal by the Revenue, the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) set aside the sanction, citing a show cause notice for denial of the claim.

The appellant had exported goods under the DEEC scheme and sought to encash the accumulated credit by applying for a refund. The show cause notice proposed denial of the claim based on a Tribunal decision in a similar case. The appellant argued that the decision was not applicable as the exporter in that case had admitted ineligibility for a refund.

The appeal by Revenue relied on the Tribunal decision, which the appellant contended went beyond the scope of the appeal by examining provisions of the Foreign Trade Policy and circulars. The appellant cited other Tribunal decisions to support their case.

The Tribunal held that rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 does not debar refund of credit based on exporters benefiting from schemes under the Foreign Trade Policy. The purpose of the rule is to ensure taxes are not exported with goods, and eligibility for credit should be based on whether the tax liability on the goods used in manufacturing export products was borne by the exporter. Circulars issued under the Customs Act cannot be applied to other tax statutes without specific authority.

The Tribunal emphasized that benefits under Foreign Trade Policy schemes do not impact entitlement for refunds under rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside as not in accordance with the law, and the appeal was allowed.