9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 1196X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts procured indigenously and when they were not in a position to utilize the same, they are entitled for refund - refund allowed - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - ST/857/2009-SM - Final Order No. 22062 / 2017 - Dated:- 18-9-2017 - Shri M. V. Ravindran, Judicial Member Mr. Naveen Kushalapppa, AR For the Appellant Mr. G.H. Pradhymna, Advocate For the Respondent ORDER Per : M. V. Ravindran This appeal is filed by the Revenue against Order-in-Appeal No.304/2009 dated 24.7.2009. 2. Heard both sides and perused the records. 3. On perusal of the records, it transpires that the issue is regarding refund of service tax paid on the various services utilized by the respondent for extraction of iron ore and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the contentions raised by the learned counsel that the decision of the Hon ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of ANZ International (supra) is in favour of the respondent. The facts of the case as recorded by the Hon ble High Court of Karnataka and the ratio thereof are reproduced herein below: 2. The ground of attack of the impugned order is that the CESTAT has committed an error in law in not appreciating the fact that the products being manufactured by the claimant which are chargeable to NIL rate of duty by the Tariff itself and the Cenvat credit can be allowed in terms of the provisions of CGR and not otherwise (by way of referring to other concessions available to EOU subject to final orders) and further contended that ano ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the exporter where they do not utilize the goods as inputs for manufacture of 100% export. The case on hand is the precise case wherein the respondent has availed the Cenvat credit facility. They were not in a position to utilize the credit, they applied for refund of the Cenvat credit availed by them. The reason is that all their products were exported and there was no domestic clearance. Therefore, in terms of Rule 5 of the Rules, they are riglitiy entitled for the refund of the duty paid to the department. The learned counsel for the appellant has pointed out that in the case of Sterlite Opitcal Technologies Ltd. v. CCE, Aurangabad - 2006 (201) E.L.T. 428 (Tri.-Mumbai), wherein it is held that letter of undertaking accepted in lieu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
