2008 (9) TMI 361 - AT - Central Excise

Claim for refund 100% EOU - department proposes to deny refund of Cenvat credit on the ground that the goods have not been exported under bond - As regards view that refund should have been claimed by the supplier and not by the appellant, we do not find any logic. A question to be considered is whether the appellants have paid the duty on goods or not, whether finished goods have been exported or not and not who is claiming the refund on duty paid on the inputs - Held that whatever benefit appellant was entitled for if they were to export in bond has to be extended to them

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim rejection based on goods not imported in bond/letter of undertaking, denial of Cenvat credit refund for goods not exported under bond, validity of supplier claiming refund instead of the appellant, duty payment on goods, export of finished goods, relevance of duty paid inputs in manufacturing exported goods.

Analysis:
The Appellate Tribunal, in a case involving a refund claim rejection, addressed multiple issues. Firstly, the rejection was based on the grounds that the goods were not imported in bond or on a letter of undertaking, and the appellant was unaware of the inability to utilize credit due to inputs used in manufacturing exported goods. The Commissioner (Appeals) noted that the appellant procured inputs from a specific supplier after acquiring an advance license invalidated in favor of that supplier, indicating the supplier's entitlement to claim a refund on duty paid. However, the Tribunal found no logic in the view that the supplier should claim the refund instead of the appellant. The focus should be on whether duty was paid on goods and if finished goods were exported, not on the claimant of the refund.

Secondly, the Revenue contended that goods exempted could not be exported under bond, leading to a denial of Cenvat credit refund. However, the Tribunal previously held that the Revenue's stance on the impossibility of exporting goods under bond was incorrect. If the goods were removed without duty payment due to departmental restrictions, and if export under bond was permissible, the appellant should be entitled to the benefits they would have received if they had exported under bond. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the Commissioner (Appeals) order on both grounds, emphasizing that being a 100% Export-Oriented Unit (EOU) and exporting goods warranted the refund claim allowance.

Lastly, the Tribunal emphasized the relevance of using duty-paid inputs in manufacturing finished goods for export. They highlighted a previous order where it was established that the crucial factor was the utilization of duty-paid inputs in producing goods for export. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, granting consequential relief to the appellant.