9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 796X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... x Court. The same was also in context of exemption notification. As against this in the present case the decision of a KAPU GEMS VERSUS C.C.E. S.T. -SURAT-I [ 2024 (1) TMI 1118 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD] is directly on the point and holds that refund claim on goods exported cannot be denied on account of registration not being there. This Court is also of the view that refund is permissible in law and only for verification of the same, the matter is remanded to the original authority - Appeal allowed by way of remand. - HON BLE MR. SOMESH ARORA MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Shri. S.J. Vyas, Advocate for the Appellant Shri. Himanshu P Shrimali, Superintendent (AR) for the Respondent ORDER The appellant is registered, w.e.f 12-12-2014, under the category of I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uired to be read in harmony with the provision of parent legislation. The Notification no. 27/2012 is not a composite Notification and is issued under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules and by implication the provisions of Cenvat Credit Rules automatically become applicable along with Central Excise Rules and Central Excise provisions. The Commissioner (Appeals), under Order-In-Appeal no. AHM- SVTAX-000-APP-0182-16-17 dated 23-01-2017, allowed the appeal filed by the department. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant has filed this appeal on the following amongst other grounds: 2.1 That the Notification being subordinate legislation, cannot omit the requirement of main legislation and this provision also cannot be contrary to the provi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... b-section (i) vide number G.S.R 156(E), dated the 14th March, 2006, the Central Board of Excise and Customs hereby directs that refund of CENVAT credit shall be allowed subject to the procedure, safeguards, conditions and limitations as specified below, namely:- 2. Safeguards, conditions and limitations.- Refund of CENVAT Credit under rule 5 of the said rules, shall be subjected to the following safeguards, conditions and limitations, namely:- (a) the manufacturer or provider of output service shall submit not more than one claim of refund under this rule for every quarter: provided that a person exporting goods and service simultaneously, may submit two refund claims one in respect of goods exported and other in respect of the export of se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anctioned is less than the amount of refund claimed, then the claimant may take back the credit of the difference between the amount claimed and amount sanctioned. 3. Procedure for filing the refund claim. - (a) The manufacturer or provider of output service, as the case may be, shall submit an application in Form A annexed to the notification, to the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise or Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, as the case may be, in whose jurisdiction,- (i) the factory from which the final products are exported is situated. (ii) the registered premises of the provider of service from which output services are exported is situated. (b) The application in the Form A along with the documents specified therein and enclosu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lly been exported and allow the claim of exporter of goods or services in full or part as the case may be. From reading of the Notification, it becomes clear that there is no condition as to registration under the said Notification. Unless and until a specific condition is contained in the notification, same cannot be read into Notification. The reasoning of the Commissioner (Appeals) that all the conditions of the Act and Rules must be made applicable to the Notification is not well founded. The Notification is exemption notification granting refund. It is a beneficial notification. The Act and Rules has many other aspects other than the basis of exemption / benefit granted under the notification. It is illogical to read various aspects co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... early in derogation of the binding decision. Once the High Court decision on the subject is available and is before the Commissioner (Appeals), the same cannot be ignored. He further relied upon decision of 2024 (1) T.M.I-1118 CESTAT-AHMEDABAD-KAPU GEMS Vs. C.C.E S.T.-SURAT-I to draw support for his proposition heard AR reiterating the order on the other hand relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in 2004 (171) ELT 296 (S.C.)- EAGLE FLASK INDUSTRIES LIMITED Vs. COMMISSIONER OF C.EX., PUNE to support the observation of Learned commissioner (Appeals). 3. This Court has considered the rival submissions. 3.1 It is found that the decision quoted by the Learned AR of EAGLE FLASK INDUSTRIES LIMITED (cited supra) is in the context of requiremen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
