9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (7) TMI 52X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d under the service tax law with the department for rendering taxable services. The argument of the Revenue that the respondent is not rending any taxable service is contrary to the registration given by the department and is not substantiated. As far as the argument that Notification No. 41/2007-ST is not a scheme of rebate is concerned, the department appears to have ignored that the refund applications were filed under Rule 5 of the CCR, 2004 which clearly provides for refund of unutilised cenvat credit on inputs and input services in case of export of goods or export of services. Notification No. 41/2007-ST only prescribes the procedures, conditions and safeguards for such refund. There is nothing in the appeal to show that the respondent is not entitled to refund of cenvat credit under Rule 5 of CCR, 2004. In fact, the appeal is silent about this rule itself. The Revenue s appeal is frivolous and has been filed without any application of mind and without even checking the basic facts including the fact that the respondent is registered with the department both under Central Excise under Service Tax and has been clearing excisable goods to Domestic Tariff Area on payment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 05/CE/Kol-III/09 dt. 11.11.09 XAP-113/RA/Kol-III-09 R(Refund)/12/DD-II/09-10, dt. 26.08.2009 ₹ 567751.00 06/CE/Kol-III/09 dt. 11.11.09 XAP-114/RA/Kol-III-09 R(Refund)/04/DD-II/09-10, dt. 01.06.2009 ₹ 475381.00 07/CE/Kol-III/09 dt. 13.11.09 TABLE B Sl.No. Order-in-Original and date Amount 1 R(Refund)/18/CE/DD-II/09-10, dt. 23.12.2009 ₹ 6003587.00 2 R(Refund)/20/CE/DD-II/09-10, dt. 01.04.2010 ₹ 592999.00 The prayer in the present appeal of the Revenue is to set aside the order of the First Appellate Authority and allow the Revenue s appeals and reject the assessee s appeals effectively denying them the entire refund of cenvat credit in all the 7 appeals. The grounds on which the present appeal is filed are as follows: (i) M/s TCG Life Science Limited is registered as a 100% EOU and is bonded by Customs. It is basically en ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for EOUs. (iv) The Commissioner (A) categorically confirmed that the said is engaged in providing services of Technical Testing and Analysis but he also held that the said exporter is engaged in manufacture. Thus, the Order passed by the Commissioner contains contradictory elements. (v) The said exporter was not producing or manufacturing any compounds but only engaged in Analysis and Testing without bringing about any change to the samples provided to them. (vi) The Commissioner (A) came to an abrupt conclusion that the said exporter is entitled to Cenvat Credit under the Foreign Trade Policy by ignoring the notification on this behalf. He simply agreed with the explanation given by the party without giving any reasons for arriving at such a decision. (vii) Notification No. 41/2007-ST, dated 06/10/07 cannot be made redundant without any valid reason. Credit is not to be taken. Only duty paid can be refunded. 3. A perusal of the above shows that the Revenue s contention is on two grounds. First, that the respondent is not a manufacturer of excisable goods nor they have exported any excisable goods. Second, the refund of unutilised cenvat credit is not allowed under N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ginal authority but has been sanctioned by the impugned order. In view of the above, he would submit that the Revenue s appeal is liable to be rejected. 6. Learned DR reiterates the arguments in the appeal. 7. We have considered the arguments on both sides and perused the records. The Revenue s arguments in their appeals that the respondent is not manufacturing any excisable goods is devoid of any merit and is contrary to the facts on record. From the impugned order and the orders of the original authority as well as the documents submitted by the Counsel for the Respondent before us, we find that the respondent is indeed registered for manufacture of excisable goods by the department themselves. Central excise tariff heads of the goods which are manufactured are also indicated. We are sure, if the department had gone through these documents, they would have had no doubt that the respondent is manufacturing excisable goods. It is also not in dispute that the respondent has been filing ER-1 returns and also been clearing some manufactured goods on payment of excise duty to Domestic Tariff Area. In view of the above, we find that the entire argument that the respondent is not a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
