2017 (4) TMI 1216

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... hold that there is no requirement of one-to-one correlation of the goods manufactured or exported - appeal rejected - decided against Revenue.
Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) Shri Ashutosh Nath, Assistant Commissioner (AR), for appellant Shri Prakash Shah, Advocate, for respondent ORDER These three appeals are filed by the Revenue against order-in-appeal No.PKS/360-362/Bel/2010 dated 7.10.2010. 2. Heard both sides and perused the records. 3. On perusal of the records, it transpires that the issue that falls for consideration is regarding the refund claims filed by the respondent in respect of the cenvat credit availed on the inputs which are consumed for manufacture of goods for export. Undisputedly, the respondent is a 100% .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the CBEC circular No.120/01/2010-ST dated 19.1.2010 as also the interpretation of Notification No.5/2006-CE, to hold that there is no requirement of one-to-one correlation of the goods manufactured or exported. 6. The findings of the first appellate authority are very relevant in this case which are in paragraphs 7 and 8. I reproduce the same. "7. Besides, the observations made in earlier para, the contention of the Revenue that the refund should be quantified and restricted to the input and input services actually used in the manufacture of the exported goods gets answered from the orders in original itself. I find that the Asstt. Commissioner had conducted the correlation of all the documents submitted by the respondents and found in o .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ies para 1(a) and condition no.4 of the appendix of Notification 5/06-CE(NT) dated 14.3.2006". Further, from the perusal of the impugned order R-1011/RKD/AC/09-10 dated 29.1.2010, I find following observations in paragraph 8 of the order: "8. The claimant also claimed the refund of unutilized cenvat credit of ₹ 296739 in respect of credit availed on inputs used in the manufacture of exported goods during the month of June 2009. However, from the statement of duty credit of inputs submitted by the assessee, it is seen that inputs mentioned at sr.no. 161, 168, 170 to 174, 179, 180, 184 to 187, 190, 195, 198, 199 and 202 on which credit has been taken, amounting to ₹ 60644 are not consumed in the relevant final product. The amo .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X