9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (12) TMI 720X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeals common issues are involved, therefore, these appeals are taken up together for disposal. 02. The brief facts of the case as per the records are that Appellant is EOU unit and filed 18 refund claims totally amounting to Rs. 43,35,610/- under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Notification No. 5/2006-CE (NT) for un-utilized Cenvat Credit of Input Services used in or in relation to the manufacture of export goods. On receiving final exit order dated 21.07.2011 from the Development Commissioner, Kandla SEZ, Appellant firm submitted online application for amendment of Central Excise registration as a DTA unit. After debonding, appellant did not carry forward the accumulated Cenvat Credit but showed the same as Cenvat Credit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alance was not transferred to the DTA unit's books from the EOU unit cannot lead to the inference that the cenvat credit balance in the EOU books have lapsed on 24.07.2011. It is settled law that unutilized credit cannot lapse as final products manufactured/ exported by utilizing the cenvat credit become vested rights of the assessee. Since the appellant firm has acquired the right and privilege of getting refund of cenvat credit of the service tax paid and remaining unutilized on account of exports before the debonding of the EOU unit, there cannot be any lapsing of the credit whatsoever as per law. He placed reliance on the following judgments:- * G.EXPORT INDUSTRIES 2007(212)ELT 421(TRIBUNAL) * JENNTEXENGG COMPANY - 2009(2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orders. 05. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the material on record, I find that originally when the appellant filed the refund claim under Notification No. 5/2006, the same was allowed by refund sanctioning authority. The revenue has challenged the sanction of refund claim on the ground that as per Notification No. 27/2012-CE (NT) dated 18.06.2012, which is issued in suppression of Notification No. 5/2006-CE(NT) dated 14.03.2006, "the amount that is claimed as refund under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules shall be debited by the claimant from his cenvat credit account at the time of making the claim". I note that in the impugned orders the Commissioner (Appeals) has wrongly considered the claim under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hen the assessee in one hand claim the refund and in other hand utilise the same amount for payment of duty on their clearance of goods, which is no-body's case. Hence the allegation of double benefit of the same amount does not even exists. In this undisputed fact, I am of the view that the Learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in rejecting the appellant's claim for refund. 5.1 As far as appellant's claim for interest on delayed refund is concerned, the issue has been settled by various decisions. Hence by following the ratio of the decisions, mainly Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd.,2011 (273) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.)wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that interest on delayed refund is payable under Section 11BB of Central Exc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
