9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 950X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion Notification No. 5/2006-CE (NT) dated 14.03.2006 as superseded by Notification No. 27/2012-CE (NT) dated 18.06.2012 is erroneous, since the spirit behind Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 is to allow refund of CENVAT credit against deemed export also. No irregularity and illegality can be attributed to such an observation made by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) so as to invoke appellate jurisdiction of this Tribunal. Further this Tribunal in respondent s own case COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE CUSTOMS, NASIK VERSUS KIRAN ELASTOMERS PVT. LTD. AND (VICE-VERSA) [ [ 2017 (12) TMI 269 - CESTAT MUMBAI ] for the period prior to period under dispute had allowed refund to the respondent by holding that there was no significant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Nashik who vide his above referred order under challenge, allowed both the refunds. Department of Revenue is in appeal challenging the legality of such order. 3. I have heard from both sides and perused the case records. As found from the Order-in-Appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) had observed that the Assistant Commissioner i.e. refund sanctioning Authority had wrongly interpreted Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 by stating that refund under this rule is permissible only if the goods are exported out of India and in case finished goods are cleared to 100% EOU against CT-3 which is considered as deemed export, refund is not admissible and such observation by wrong interpretat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vation that in none of those judgements the issue concerning use of inputs in the manufacture of goods supplied to 100% EOU was involved. No irregularity and illegality can be attributed to such an observation made by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) so as to invoke appellate jurisdiction of this Tribunal. Further this Tribunal in its order dated 22.09.2017 reported in 2017-TIOL-4269-CESTAT-MUM in respondent s own case for the period prior to period under dispute had allowed refund to the respondent by holding that there was no significant difference as regards term export for the purpose of Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, during pre and post amendment introduced to Rule 5 in 2012. Hence in carrying forward the judicial precedent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
