2017 (5) TMI 671 - AT - Central Excise

Refund of CENVAT credit - clearances made to 100% EOU - deemed exports - denial on the ground that the supplies made to EOU cannot be considered as actual physical exports - Held that - reliance was placed in the case of Commissioner Versus Amitex Silk Mills P. Ltd. 2008 (7) TMI 956 - SUPREME COURT , where it was held that deemed exports made by assessee-EOU to another EOU has to be treated on par with physical exports - rejection of refund is unjustified - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Whether the appellant is eligible for a refund of CENVAT credit in respect of clearances made to 100% EOU.

Analysis:
The issue at hand in this case revolves around the eligibility of the appellant for a refund of CENVAT credit concerning clearances made to a 100% Export Oriented Unit (EOU). The refund was initially denied on the basis that the supplies made to the EOU could not be considered as actual physical exports, as they were deemed exports. The central question is whether the appellant is entitled to the refund under these circumstances.

The judgment in this case draws upon previous legal precedents to support its decision. It references the case of Commissioner Vs. Amitex Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd., where the Supreme Court dismissed the civil appeal filed by the Department and upheld the Tribunal's decision. The Tribunal had ruled that deemed exports made by an EOU to another EOU should be treated on par with physical exports. Additionally, the judgment cites the case of CCE&C Vs. NBM Industries, where the Gujarat High Court reiterated the Tribunal's view that goods cleared by the Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) to 100% EOU units should be considered as physical exports. The denial of refund on this ground was deemed as not legally justified.

Furthermore, the judgment highlights a previous decision by the same Bench in the appellant's case for a different period, where the refund was allowed. Based on the legal principles established in the aforementioned cases, the presiding Member, Sulekha Beevi, C.S., concluded that the rejection of the refund in the present case was unjustified. Consequently, the impugned order denying the refund was set aside, and the appellant was deemed eligible for the refund. The appeals were allowed with consequential reliefs, if any, in favor of the appellant.