2018 (3) TMI 11 - AT - Central Excise

Refund claim - case of appellant is that they have wrongly paid an amount of 6% of the value of the exempted goods cleared for export - Held that - the issue is no more res integra and is covered by the decision in the case of Sharp Menthol India Ltd. s case 2011 (4) TMI 27 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT , where it was held that the assessee was entitled to avail the CENVAT credit of duty paid on menthol used in the manufacture of exempted menthol crystals and utilize the said credit for payment of duty on clearance of peppermint oil either for home consumption or for export - the Appellant is not required to discharge 6% of the value of the exported Ethamotul HCL, which is exempted from duty - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim rejection for 6% value of exempted goods cleared for export under Notification No.12/2012-CE.

Issue Analysis:

1. Refund Claim Rejection:
The appellants filed a refund claim for ?7,77,702 for the period 30.9.12 to 25.2.2013, stating that they wrongly paid 6% of the value of exempted goods cleared for export. The claim was rejected, leading to the appeal. The appellants, engaged in pharmaceutical product manufacturing, argued that they cleared Ethamutol HCL under Chapter Heading 29 of CETA, 1985, exempted from duty under Notification No.12/2012-CE. They contended that they were not required to reverse the 6% value under Rule 6(6)(v) of C.C.R., 2004, citing judgments like C.C.E. Aurangabad Vs. Jolly Board Ltd. and others to support their claim.

2. Legal Arguments:
The advocate for the appellants emphasized that they had followed the necessary procedures for clearing the exempted goods for export and that the eligibility for CENVAT credit on such goods was well-established by various High Court judgments. The Revenue, represented by the A.R., supported the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) in rejecting the refund claim.

3. Judgment and Analysis:
The Member (Judicial) analyzed the issue in light of previous judgments and the provisions of Rule 6(6) of 2004 Rules. Referring to the Hon’ble Bombay High Court's decision in Sharp Menthol India Ltd.’s case, it was concluded that the appellants were not required to discharge the 6% value of the exported goods exempted from duty. The impugned order was deemed devoid of merit, leading to its setting aside and allowing the appeal with consequential relief, if any, as per law.

This detailed analysis of the legal judgment highlights the key issues, legal arguments, and the final decision made by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT AHMEDABAD regarding the rejection of the refund claim for the 6% value of exempted goods cleared for export under Notification No.12/2012-CE.