2018 (2) TMI 1664 - AT - Central Excise

100% EOU - Refund of unutilized CENVAT credit - Rule 5 of CCR 2004 - Held that - an identical issue has come up before the Tribunal in the case of Infosys Technologies Ltd. v. CCE 2016 (9) TMI 142 - CESTAT MUMBAI , where it was held that The criteria for refund are existence of accumulated credit, insufficient opportunity for utilization thereof and limiting the extent of refund to the proportion that export turnover bears to total turnover - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against order-in-appeal No.101-103/2009 dated 20.04.2009 regarding refund claim under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.

Analysis:
The appellant, a 100% EOU engaged in developing engineering designs and drawings exported to the U.S for manufacturing hydraulic systems, filed a refund claim under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, which was rejected by lower authorities. The issue revolves around the refund of accumulated Cenvat credit on input services utilized for exported services. The Tribunal referred to similar cases like Infosys Technologies Ltd. v. CCE and Axa Business Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Comm. Of ST, emphasizing that the refund criteria under Rule 5 are self-contained and not subject to other provisions. It highlighted the need to confine to stipulations in the rule and observed that unutilized Cenvat credit for exported services represents tax that should not have been collected. The Tribunal upheld that the criteria for refund include existence of accumulated credit, insufficient utilization opportunity, and limiting refund proportionate to export turnover.

In alignment with legal precedents, the Tribunal emphasized that the tax exemption through refund is an accepted practice to avoid frustrating the intent of tax laws. It cited the case of mPortal India Wireless Solutions P. Ltd. v. CST where the Karnataka High Court held that even for non-taxable exported services, the appellant cannot be denied Cenvat credit refund. The court also noted that the requirement of registration with the department as a condition for claiming Cenvat credit is not mandated by Cenvat Credit Rules. The court set aside the impugned order and allowed all three appeals, emphasizing the well-settled legal position regarding refund of accumulated Cenvat credit on input services utilized for exported services.

Therefore, the judgment revolves around the appellant's entitlement to a refund claim under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, for accumulated Cenvat credit on input services utilized for exported services. The Tribunal's decision aligns with legal precedents emphasizing the self-contained nature of the refund criteria and the need to adhere to stipulations in the rule. The judgment also clarifies that the tax exemption through refund is a legitimate practice to prevent misinterpretation of tax laws and ensure fair treatment for exporters.