9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 1122X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... puts which are used in the manufacture of fully exempted export products subject to certain prescribed procedures of fixing input-output norms - appellant has not followed the procedures – thus, he cannot claim the benefit of Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rule - the appellant is claiming refund of duty paid on inputs which are not manufactured by them - Appellant has got no locus standi to seek refund of duty paid on input under Section 11B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, when he has not paid such a duty – Decided against Assessee. - E/1030 to 1034/11 - Final Order No. A/10647-10651/2013-WZB/AHD - Dated:- 7-5-2013 - MR. H. K. THAKUR, J. For the Appellant: Shri R.R. Dave (Cons.) For the Respondent: Shri J. Nagori (A.R.) JUDGE ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble to the appellant under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rule. It was also argued that refund under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act cannot be entertained as the refund sought by appellant is not with respect to duty refund which he has paid. He further relied upon the judgment of Nemlaxmi Books (India) P. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of C. EX., Surat [2011 (23) STR 367 (Tri.-Ahmd)] and argued that even if it is presumed that the appellant is entitled to Rule-5 of Cenvat Credit refund the same is required to be filed periodically, which was not done by the appellant. 6. After hearing both sides at length and perusal of records, it is observed that the appellant has received duty paid inputs used in the manufacture of fully exempted product Pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rvations, cenvat credit Rules are not applicable to the appellants case and no refund under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 is admissible because no credit accumulation is possible in view of the provisions of Rule 6(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules. So far as reliance of the appellant upon their own judgment dated 25/11/2011 in CESTAT in Appeal No.1222-1224 is concerned, it is observed from para 4 of the said order that refund of credit was allowed when the unit was still working under 100% EOU category and was not operating under DTA category. Therefore, the facts of that case and the period is different than the facts and period of the present proceedings. Appellant has also taken in the ground of appeal that rejecting their refund cla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
