9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (3) TMI 989X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s 54, 55, 59 and 60 of CETA, 1985, filed five refund claims, claiming refund of unutilized Cenvat credit of NCCD paid on inputs and however, remained unutilized as their final products viz. Chenille fabrics and MM fabrics are not attracting the NCCD and that their major clearances are for export; that on scrutiny of all refund claims, five SCN were issued with proposal to reject the refund claims amounting to Rs. 6,08,319/- on the ground that the duty of NCCD paid on inputs were not used in export of goods under Letter of Undertaking/ Bond and the said refund of NCCD is not envisaged under Circular No. 701/17/2003-CX., dated 12-3-2003; that it was further alleged that the said circular allows refund of accumulated AED (GSI) and not NCCD und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, ignoring the above decision is not tenable; (iv) that without prejudice to the above, the appellant submits that in the following decisions, the issue has been fully settled. But the Deputy Commissioner did not give any findings which is nothing but mockery of judicial principles. (a) CCE, Mumbai-III v. D.C. Polyester P. Ltd. - 2004 (166) E.L.T. 472 (Tri.-Mum.), (b) CCE, Mumbai-III v. D.C. Polyester P. Ltd. - Order No. C-IV/1220-21/WZB/03 dt. 21-11-03 [2004 (176) E.L.T. 471 (Tribunal)] (c) CCE, Mumbai-III v. Virender Processors P. Ltd. - Order No. S/205, 206/WZB/04/C-II dt. 7-5-04 (judgment of Double Bench in their own case), (d) CCE v. Virendra Processors P. Ltd. - Order No. A/655-56/WZB/2004/C-II dt. 4-8-2004, (e) MRF Ltd. v CCE, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is envisaged for refund under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004; that he has further held that Cenvat credit accumulation should be on account of inputs used in the manufacture of goods cleared for export under bond/Letter of Undertaking and in the instant case, the appellant has claimed refund on the goods cleared for export under rebate and refund of Cenvat credit accumulated on the above ground is not envisaged under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules. Whereas the appellant claims that the Cenvat credit of NCCD remained accumulated on the ground that their final product - chenille fabrics and man made fabrics which were exported were not attracting NCCD and further utilization of NCCD is restricted only towards payment of NCCD; tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tergra in view of the various decisions supported by the Board's Circular dated 12-3-2003 (supra). The Tribunal Mumbai in the case of CCE v. D.C. Polyester Pvt. Ltd. held that "Board's Circular No. 701/17/2003-CX dated 12-3-2003 allows refund of un-utilized credit of Additional Duty of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) on export of the finished goods even if such finished goods are not subjected to levy of the said additional duty - Department's appeal rejected - Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules". The above case has been affirmed by Hon'ble High Court, Mumbai - 2009 (242) E.L.T. 348 (Bom.). In addition to the above, the CESTAT, Bangalore in the case of MRF Ltd. v. CCE, Hyderabad - 2004 (171) E.L.T. 471 (Tri.) = 2004 (65) RLT 606 has held th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
