9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 23X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... E/2522/2011 - A/60400/2017-SM[BR] - Dated:- 15-3-2017 - Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) Sh. G.M. Sharma, AR, for the Appellant Sh. Surjeet Bhadu, Advocate, for the Respondent ORDER Per Ashok Jindal Revenue is in appeal against the impugned order wherein the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed refund claim filed by the respondent under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. 2. The facts of the case are that the respondent is manufacturer of excisable goods and part of the goods are being exported and parts of the goods are being cleared to home consumption. There was an unutilized Cenvat Credit relying in their Cenvat Credit account. The respondent filed refund claim under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of unutilized credit of ₹ 50.51 crores in the Cenvat account; that there was accumulation of further credit of ₹ 11.34 crores, during the disputed two quarters; that out of the said balance credit, the assessee could utilize only ₹ 16.82 crores during the disputed quarters, leaving a balance unutilized credit of ₹ 45.03 crores; that the credit balance has never gone below the refund claimed, which itself evidences that the assessee was not in a position to utilize the Cenvat credit of the amount claimed as cash refund in the present case; that goods exported have been manufactured out of duty paid inputs, either imported or indigenous, and duty-free imported goods under advance authorization scheme, as replenishment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erm raw materials required for use does not mean that raw material must be physically incorporated; that judgments of Hon'ble Tribunal in Bhilwara Spinners - 2009 (90) RLT 614 (T) and U.K. Paints - 2004 (170) E.L.T. 280 (T), relied upon by the assessee would support their contention that duty free imports under Advance Licence does not take away the substantial benefits of refund under Rule 5 of CCR r/w Notn. No.5/2006-C.E. (N.T.), dated 14-3-2006; that if the legislative intention was to deny DEEC benefit along with refund under Rule 5, it would have specifically mentioned in the Notification, as it has mentioned drawback and rebate; that advance authorization and corresponding Notn. No.93/2004-Cus., dated 10-9-2004 does not put any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
