2018 (2) TMI 550 - AT - Central Excise

Refund claim - CENVAT credit wrongly availed - non-production of required documents - Held that - it appears that the appellant has wrongly claimed refund of the unutilized CENVAT against Rule 5 of the CCR 2004. Appellant has failed to produce the documents on the basis of which credit was wrongly availed. Thus, it appears that the refund claim is not sustainable in law - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Refund claim of unutilized CENVAT under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed by the assessee against Order-in-Appeal No: PIII/190/08 dated 30/09/2008. Despite the absence of the appellant, the Commissioner (Appeals) observed that the appellant wrongly claimed a refund of unutilized CENVAT under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The Commissioner highlighted that the appellant failed to demonstrate that the accumulation of credit was due to exports, as required by the rule. The case of Slovak India, on which the appellant relied, was deemed irrelevant as it did not support their claim. It was emphasized that the refund claim should be preceded by accumulation on account of exports, which the appellant failed to establish. Consequently, the refund was deemed inadmissible under the law.

The Tribunal concurred with the Commissioner's findings, stating that the appellant incorrectly sought a refund of unutilized CENVAT under Rule 5 without providing the necessary documentation to support the claim. The Tribunal upheld that the appellant did not meet the criteria for refund as per the rule. Therefore, the Tribunal found no grounds to overturn the impugned order, and the findings therein were upheld. Ultimately, the appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed.