2015 (2) TMI 1057 - AT - Central Excise

Maintainability of appeal - Refund claim - Cash refund of accumulated CENVAT Credit - Asstt. Commissioner rejected the refund claim on the ground that this refund claim is in respect of the exports under Bond made against under advance licence scheme and that grant of cash refund of the cenvat credit would result in double benefit - Held that - Appeal is not maintainable as the authorisation by the Committee of Commissioners is not in terms of provisions of rule 35 B (2) as the same person holding the charge of Commissioner Central Excise Jaipur-I as well as Commissioner Central Excise Jaipur-II has signed the authorization. The committee of Commissioners mentioned in Section 35 B (2) must necessarily consist of two Commissioners. Even on merits also the issue stands decided against the Department by detailed order of the Tribunal in the respondents own case reported in 2011 (2) TMI 584 - CESTAT NEW DELHI . In view of this we do not find any merit in the appeal of the Revenue - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Claim for cash refund of accumulated cenvat credit for goods exported under bond without payment of duty. Authorization for appeal against Commissioner (Appeals) order by a single person instead of a Committee of Commissioners.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Claim for cash refund of accumulated cenvat credit
The case involved a dispute regarding the appellant's claim for a cash refund of accumulated cenvat credit for goods exported under bond without payment of duty. The appellant contended that they were entitled to the refund as they could not utilize the cenvat credit for payment of duty on clearances for home consumption. The Asstt. Commissioner initially rejected the refund claim, citing the possibility of double benefit due to the exports being made under the Advance License Scheme. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) overturned this decision and allowed the appeal. The Revenue then appealed against this order, leading to the respondent filing a Cross-Objection. The Tribunal noted that the denial of the refund under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 was incorrect as there was no requirement that exports should not have been made against an advance license. The Tribunal also referenced its previous judgments in favor of the respondent and found no merit in the Revenue's appeal, ultimately dismissing it.

Issue 2: Authorization for appeal against Commissioner (Appeals) order
A preliminary objection was raised regarding the authorization for the appeal against the Commissioner (Appeals) order, as it was signed by a single person holding the positions of Commissioner, Central Excise, Jaipur-I, and Commissioner, Central Excise, Jaipur-II. The requirement under Section 35 B (2) mandates that the appeal to the Tribunal against the Commissioner (Appeals) order should be authorized by a Committee of Commissioners consisting of two Commissioners. The Tribunal upheld this objection and found the appeal by the Revenue not maintainable on this ground. Additionally, the Tribunal referenced its previous detailed order in the respondent's own case, further supporting the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal and disposed of the cross-objection, emphasizing the lack of merit in the appeal and upholding the preliminary objection regarding the authorization for the appeal against the Commissioner (Appeals) order.