2017 (9) TMI 504 - HC - Central Excise

Refund of unutilised CENVAT credit - export of services - Rule 5 of CCR, 2004 - Held that - the refund u/r 5 would be available when any input or input service is used in manufacture of any final product or letter of undertaking or use in the intermediate product cleared for export, or used in providing output service which is exported. If this conditions are satisfied, refund of CENVAT would be available subject to other conditions mentioned in the rules - Admittedly, the CENVAT does not relate to any input or input service used in any final product or used in intermediate product cleared for export or used in providing output service which is exported - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Refund of accumulated CENVAT credit under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
2. Interpretation of Rule 5 regarding conditions for refund.
3. Application of Rule 5 in the case of opting out of Cenvat regime.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Refund of accumulated CENVAT credit under Rule 5
The appellant, a manufacturer of polyester texturised yarn, filed a refund application for unutilized CENVAT credit of ?62.05 lakhs and ?52.03 lakhs in the capital goods account. The claim was based on Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. However, both the adjudicating authority and the Tribunal rejected the claim, leading to the appeal.

Issue 2: Interpretation of Rule 5 regarding conditions for refund
The Tribunal upheld the decisions of the authorities, emphasizing that the refund of unused CENVAT credit should arise from the export of goods. Rule 5 specifies conditions for refund, stating that credit can be utilized if inputs are used in the manufacture of final products cleared for export under bond or letter of undertaking, or in providing output services that are exported. The rule outlines safeguards and limitations for such refunds, barring certain scenarios where credit cannot be availed.

Issue 3: Application of Rule 5 in the case of opting out of Cenvat regime
The Tribunal correctly interpreted Rule 5, highlighting that the refund is contingent upon specific conditions being met, such as the utilization of inputs in export-related activities. Since the appellant's case did not fulfill these conditions, the claim for refund of accumulated CENVAT credit was deemed untenable. The Tribunal's decision aligned with the legal framework, and no error in law was found. Consequently, the Tax Appeal was dismissed, affirming the Tribunal's ruling.

In conclusion, the judgment clarifies the requirements for claiming a refund of CENVAT credit under Rule 5 and underscores the necessity for compliance with the stipulated conditions, particularly concerning exports. The decision underscores the importance of strict adherence to statutory provisions in matters of tax refunds and credits, ensuring consistency and adherence to established legal principles.