2017 (11) TMI 594 - AT - Central Excise

Clearance to 100% EOU - Refund claim - deemed export - period of limitation - Held that - the issue on merits is settled in favor of the appellant, by Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of COMMISSIONER - CENTRAL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS Versus NBM INDUSTRIES 2011 (9) TMI 360 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT , where it was held that Refund of Cenvat credit was available on inputs used in manufacture of goods cleared by DTA unit to 100% EOU that Refund could not be denied on ground that it was a case of deemed export, under Rule 5 of CCR, 2004. Refund claim - time limitation - rejection of refund claim for the quarter ending March, 2006 - Held that - when the claim was to be filed quarterly, the date of filing was to be computed from the last date of quarters - refund filed is within time limit. Refund allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against Order-in-Appeal No.49-53/CE/APPL/NOIDA/09 dated 27/02/2009
- Refund claims filed by appellant-assessee for duty paid on inputs used in manufacturing
- Rejection of refund claims due to goods supplied to 100% EOU without payment of duty
- Interpretation of export under Central Excise Act & Customs Act
- Applicability of Notification No.22/2003-CE for exemption from Central Excise Duty
- Legal precedent regarding refund of Cenvat credit for goods supplied to EOU
- Rejection of refund claim for quarter ending March, 2006 as time-barred

Analysis:
The appellant-assessee filed appeals against Order-in-Appeal No.49-53/CE/APPL/NOIDA/09 dated 27/02/2009, challenging the rejection of refund claims for duty paid on inputs used in manufacturing auto components supplied to M/s. Delphi Automotive Systems Pvt. Ltd., a 100% EOU, without payment of duty. The rejection was based on the grounds that the goods were cleared under CT-3 certificates, deemed export, and not actual export as defined under the Central Excise Act & Customs Act. The appellant argued that Notification No.22/2003-CE provides exemption from Central Excise Duty for goods bought in connection with export, subject to specific conditions. The appellant cited legal precedents, including the ruling of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs v/s NBM Industries, supporting the refund of Cenvat credit for goods supplied to EOU.

The Tribunal, after considering the arguments, found in favor of the appellant on the merits of the issue, citing the legal precedent set by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court and a previous decision of the Tribunal in the appellant's case. The Tribunal also addressed the rejection of the refund claim for the quarter ending March, 2006 as time-barred, ruling that the claim was filed within the stipulated time frame. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed all the appeals, directing the Adjudicating authority to grant the refund within 45 days, along with interest as per Section 11BB of the Act upon receipt of the order.