2019 (5) TMI 132 - AT - Central Excise

Refund of accumulated CENVAT Credit - export of goods under bond for the period from 06.10.2008 to 31.10.2008 - time limitation - HELD THAT - Even though the grounds of appeal have indeed mentioned that an appeal has been filed against the said CESTAT Final Order, there is nothing forthcoming on record that the said Order has been stayed or otherwise the Department Appeal allowed. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Refund claim under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 for accumulated credit on input services due to export of goods under bond. Time-barred claim, deduction of credit on foreign agents commission, application of refund formula under Notification No. 05/2006 CE (NT). Appeal by Department against Commissioner (Appeals) decision allowing the refund. Adjustment of refund with another demand against the appellant.

Analysis:

1. Time-barred Claim and Deduction of Credit: The appellants filed a refund claim under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 for accumulated credit on input services due to export of goods under bond. The adjudicating authority rejected the claim citing it as time-barred for four exports made before the claim filing date. Additionally, an Order-in-Original denied CENVAT credit on foreign agents commission, which was deducted from the total credit availed by the appellants during the relevant period.

2. Appeal and Commissioner's Decision: The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the Original Authority's order and allowed the appeal entirely. The Department appealed this decision before the forum, arguing that the Commissioner erred in allowing the credit based on previous CESTAT Final Orders, which were under appeal by the Department in the High Court. The Department emphasized the necessity for the respondent to satisfy the limitation clause under Section 11B of the Act.

3. Refund Adjustment and Final Decision: During the hearing, the Revenue reiterated its grounds of appeal, emphasizing the inability to adjust the refund with another demand against the appellant. The forum found no infirmity in the Commissioner (Appeals) order, stating that all issues raised by the Original Authority were thoroughly analyzed by the lower appellate authority. The forum highlighted that the adjustment of the demand from the CENVAT account of the appellants was not permissible, especially when the Order-in-Original was sub judice at the time of the refund order. Despite the Department's appeal against the CESTAT Final Orders, no evidence of a stay or allowance was presented. Consequently, the forum dismissed the Revenue's appeal due to lack of merit.

In conclusion, the judgment upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision to allow the refund claim, rejecting the Revenue's appeal on the grounds of inability to adjust the refund with another demand and lack of merit in challenging the lower appellate authority's thorough analysis of the issues.