TMI Blog2013 (6) TMI 651X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Finance Act, 2010. This amendment appears to have done away with 1:1 correlation between input and final product for refund under Rule 5 of Cenvat Rules. Tribunal directed to decide the appeals after considering the effect of the amended Notification No.5/2006 C.E.(N.T.) dated 14.03.2006 on the refund application filed by the appellants. - matter restored before CESTAT. - Central Excise Appeal No. 120 to 129 of 2012 - - - Dated:- 22-11-2012 - J. P. Devadhar And M. S. Sanklecha, JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. Sridharan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Prakash Shah , Mr. Jas Sanghavi with Mr. Uchit Jain For the Respondent : Mr. Pradeep S. Jetly with Mr. Neelesh Vasant Kalantri JUDGMENT (Per M. S. Sanklecha, J.) These 12 appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the cenvat credit taken on inputs used in the manufacture of the final products cleared for exports under bond/letter of undertaking. 4 The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise had the 12 refund claims verified by the Superintendent of Central Excise and on the basis of report dated 20.05.2010 of the Superintendent of Central Excise had sanctioned all the 12 refund claims filed by the appellant. 5 Being aggrieved the Commissioner of Central Excise reviewed all the 12 orders in original resulting in filing of 12 appeals before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals). The Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) by various orders allowed all 12 appeals filed by the revenue. These appeals were allowed on the ground that the appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... articularly so as in view of the fact that by Notification No.7/2010 C.E.(N.T.) dated 27.02.2010 the Notification No.5/2006 C.E. (N.T.) dated 14.03.2006 has been amended with retrospective effect from 14.03.2006. In view of the above amendment refund of Cenvat credit would be allowed even in respect of inputs used in or in relation to the manufacture of final products. Therefore according to him there was no requirement to establish 1:1 corelation between inputs and final products for the purposes of the refund. This aspect of the matter though considered by the adjudicating authority has been completely ignored by the Tribunal while disposing of the 12 appeals by order dated 13.03.2012. 8 As against the above, Mr. Jetly, Counsel for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt had filed its claim for refund in the revised format. The adjudicating authority in his Order dated 04.06.2010 has observed as under: 7. The Superintendent, Central Excise, RangeIII/ Taloja Division has pointed out that the assessee has not provided the exact 1:1 corelation between raw material to finished exported goods. In other words the report does not deny the use of Mentha oil as input and also do not mean that raw material were never went in final product. It is the fact that the input material was used in finished product. The input material being in liquid form and the same being stored in a common discharge tank, the intermixing of old and new stock was possible but considering the liquid nature of the input and output produ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ground in the production of liquid product from liquid input product . Therefore the adjudicating authority has independently applied his mind and held that 1:1 correlation is not required for the grant of refund of Cenvat credit. In fact in appeal the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) has wile allowing the appeal of the revenue has held that 14. The respondents have also placed reliance upon the CBEC circular No.20/01/2010ST dated 19/1/2010. The circular has provided for a procedure to address the problem of proving one to one co relationship and has prescribed a proforma for declaration under paragraph 3:2:2. However, the respondents have not produced the details in the prescribed proforma with the appeal or during the course ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|