9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 1402X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... favour of the appellant in their own case M/S. GEM GRANITES VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BELGAUM [ 2016 (10) TMI 34 - CESTAT BANGALORE] where it was held that ' the Revenue's contention that in terms of definition of input given in Rule 2(k) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 the appellants are not entitled to claim CENVAT credit, cannot be accepted, when the Notification No.22/2003 dated 31.3.2003 makes an EOU entitled to claim CENVAT credit on the procurement of HSD used as fuel.' - refund allowed. Refund of the credit of Service Tax paid on Security Services utilized by the EOU - HELD THAT:- As held in large number of cases including in the case of THE COMMISSIONER, CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE, HYDERABAD-IV VERSUS M/S. QUA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he DTA units. Since the fuel was procured on payment of tax from DTA units, appellant availed credit of the duty so paid on the HSD. Appellant also availed credit of Service Tax paid towards Security Services. Both the activities were reflected in the ER-2 Returns. However, the refund claim filed by the appellant were rejected by the Adjudication Authority and in appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) also rejected the same. Aggrieved by said order, present appeal is filed. 2. When the matter came up for hearing, Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the issue is no more res-integra. The issue for the previous period was examined by this Tribunal in the appellant s own case in Appeal No. E/1541/2010, E/2091/2010 and E/481/2012, and allowed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le to the present appellants, who are an EOU and not a DTA industry. 7. All the appeals are allowed in above terms by setting aside the impugned orders. 3. Learned Counsel further submits that the removal of goods by EOU is governed by the provisions of Rule 17 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The facility of availing CENVAT Credit was extended to EOUs vide Notification No. 18/2004-CE (NT) dated 06.09.2004. The appellant also relied on the Notification No. 22/2003 dated 31.03.2003, the decisions of the Tribunal in following matters:- i. Indian Oil Corporation Limited Vs. CCE (reported in 2008 (230) ELT 177 (Tri.-Chennai.) ii. Commr. Of Central Excise Vs. Jagmini Micro Knit Pvt Ltd reported in 2009 (238) ELT 327 (Tri-Del.) iii. Hindustan U ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ata. 5. The Learned Authorised Representative (AR) for the Revenue reiterated the submissions and admits that the issue is covered by the decision of this Tribunal for the previous period as contended by the appellant. 6. Heard both sides and perused the records. 7. We find that the issue regarding eligibility of the appellant in claiming refund of Rs. 25,80,768 paid by appellant while procuring HSD for their EOU is covered in favour of the appellant in their own case. As regarding the claim of rejection of refund of Rs. 1,18,298/- security services, as held in large number of cases including in the case of Qualcomm India Pvt., Ltd., (supra), once it is admitted as eligible credit and if the respondent has reason to believe that, it is wron ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
