2018 (3) TMI 325 - AT - Central Excise

Refund claim - whether the supply made to 100% EOU is entitle for refund of accumulated Cenvat Credit under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004? - Held that - As per the amended definition of export goods refund is only allowed in respect of export goods, which are taken outside India - Ld. Commissioner has relied upon the sanction order of appellant which is pertaining to the period prior to 1-3-2005 therefore same is not relevant to the fact of the present case - refund not allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of Revenue.

Summary

Issues involved: Whether supply to 100% Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) Unit (DOU) is entitled to a refund of accumulated Cenvat Credit under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 for the period of April 2015 to June 2015.

Analysis:
1. The Revenue's representative argued that post an amendment to Rule 5 on March 1, 2015, refunds were only permissible for goods physically exported out of India, not for deemed exports to 100% Export Oriented Units (EOUs). The Commissioner's decision based on an earlier order allowing refunds was deemed irrelevant due to the specific period in question.

2. Conversely, the Respondent's counsel contended that despite the Rule 5 amendment, Circular No.1001/8/2015-CX8 issued by the board on April 28, 2015, allowed refunds for deemed exports. The counsel cited various precedents to support their argument.

3. The judge deliberated on the submissions and records presented. The core issue was whether the appellant qualified for a refund under Rule 5 for the specified period. The judge reviewed the amended Rule 5, which restricted refunds to goods physically exported outside India. The Commissioner's reliance on a pre-amendment sanction order was deemed irrelevant. The judge also dismissed the relevance of the circular, noting its applicability to Special Economic Zones (SEZs) and not 100% EOUs. The cited judgments were deemed inapplicable due to their pre-amendment context.

4. Consequently, the judge ruled that the impugned order was unsustainable and set it aside. The Revenue's appeal was allowed, and the case was disposed of accordingly.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the arguments presented by both sides, the judge's interpretation of the relevant legal provisions, and the ultimate decision reached based on the specific facts and legal framework applicable to the case.