2013 (12) TMI 814 - AT - Central Excise

Cash refund of cenvat credit on input service under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 read with Notification No.05/06-CE Held that - The documents on which CENVAT Credit was availed initially on which cash refund had been claimed were not in order- Both sides agreed that these documents require reconsideration; also on the admissibility of cash refund of CENVAT Credit on various input services need to be examined afresh - in the Appellant s own case for earlier period the Tribunal had remanded the matter for re-verification of the documents and also on other issues - the Appeal needs to be also remanded to the Adjudicating Authority for verification of the relevant documents on which the Appellant had availed CENVAT Credit and later claimed the cash refund under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 order set aside and the matter is remanded to the Adjudicating Authority for re-consideration of all the documents produced and the issues afresh Decided in favour of Assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Claim for cash refund of CENVAT Credit on input services used in the manufacture and export of goods.
2. Dispute regarding admissibility of cash refund on various input services.
3. Lack of documentary evidence to substantiate the claim for input services used in export.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Claim for cash refund of CENVAT Credit on input services used in the manufacture and export of goods
The Appellant, a manufacturer of natural silk fabrics, exported goods and claimed a cash refund of CENVAT Credit on input services used in manufacturing the exported fabrics under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. An initial refund was sanctioned but later sought to be recovered due to alleged discrepancies in the input service invoices. The Assistant Commissioner issued a show cause notice for recovery, which was confirmed in the Order-in-Original. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the decision, leading to the present Appeal challenging the recovery order.

Issue 2: Dispute regarding admissibility of cash refund on various input services
The Appellant argued that the input services, such as freight & forwarding, documentation, handling, etc., were used in the manufacture and export of goods, making them eligible for cash refund. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal citing lack of necessary evidence to support the claim that these services were indeed used for exporting excisable goods. The Appellant presented documents and case laws to support their eligibility for the refund, referencing a previous Tribunal order that partly allowed their claim and remanded the matter for re-verification of documents.

Issue 3: Lack of documentary evidence to substantiate the claim for input services used in export
The Revenue contended that the Appellant failed to provide sufficient documentary evidence to substantiate their claim that the input services were utilized for providing output services. Both parties agreed that the documents supporting the CENVAT Credit needed re-examination, highlighting the need to reconsider the admissibility of cash refund on the input services in question.

In the judgment, the Tribunal found that a re-examination of the documents supporting the CENVAT Credit and the admissibility of cash refund on input services was necessary. Referring to a previous case involving the Appellant, the Tribunal decided to remand the matter to the Adjudicating Authority for a fresh examination of all documents and issues. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of granting the Appellant a reasonable opportunity of hearing during the re-consideration process, ultimately allowing the Appeal by way of remand.