2017 (9) TMI 859 - AT - Central Excise

Refund of unutilised CENVAT credit - case of Revenue is that there is no one to one correlation between the inputs and exported manufactured yarn to prove that the Cenvat credit relates to relevant quarter to which refund claimed pertained - Held that - the Tribunal held in the case of Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. 2014 (11) TMI 577 - CESTAT MUMBAI that no one to one correlation was required between inputs and exported goods. Hence we are not convinced of this ground of appeal. Non-recording of inputs consumed in the exported final products - Held that - the appellants have to simply demonstrate that on exporting the finished goods credit has accumulated on account of receipt of duty paid inputs by the manufacturer which they are unable to utilize for any other purpose and therefore cass refund is the only way out. Thus the ground of maintenance of separate record taken for denying the refund claim is not tenable. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim rejection based on non-utilization of Cenvat credit for exported goods and lack of one-to-one correlation between inputs and exported goods.

Analysis:
1. The appellants filed refund claims for unutilized Cenvat credit, rejected by the adjudicating authority due to alleged accumulation not from inability to use credit on exported goods but due to higher credit availed on inputs and less duty paid on finished goods. Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the refund, leading to Revenue's appeal.

2. Revenue argued that refund is justified only if the credit couldn't be utilized for exported goods, emphasizing the lack of evidence showing exclusive use of inputs in exported yarn. They contested the reliance on case laws by the respondents.

3. Respondent's advocate supported the Commissioner's decision, citing CBEC circular and case laws to justify the refund. The Tribunal examined records and submissions, finding the Revenue's contention of no one-to-one correlation between inputs and exported goods unconvincing.

4. The Tribunal referred to a CBEC circular simplifying procedures and allowing refunds across quarters, negating the need for a direct correlation. They cited a case where no such correlation was required, supporting the Commissioner's decision.

5. Revenue's argument of lack of proof for inability to use credit was countered by the Tribunal, citing a case where refund was allowed for unutilized credit. They upheld the Commissioner's reliance on a case regarding the absence of a requirement to record inputs consumed in exported goods.

6. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, finding no merit as per the CBEC circular, case laws, and previous Tribunal decisions. The decision was in favor of the appellants, upholding the refund of unutilized Cenvat credit.