Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2016 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (6) TMI 155 - CESTAT BANGALORECenvat Credit - Nexus between input services and manufacturing activity - deemed export - Whether the input credit availed on various services by the respondent would fall under the definition of input services/input as per the definition existing prior to 01.04.2011 and whether there is a nexus between input services and the final product exported - Held that:- by examining the definition of input service as per Rule 2(l), it is found that it has a very wide scope as held by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Coca Cola Vs. CCE, Pune-III and further while allowing the cenvat credit with regard to input services involved in these appeals, the learned Commissioner has relied upon various decisions of the Courts and the Tribunals and has also mentioned about the nexus. Therefore in view of the well reasoned finding of the Commissioner (Appeals), I am of the considered opinion that the findings given by the Commissioner (Appeals) are sustainable and there is no infirmity in it and the same is upheld. Eligibility for refund of unutilized Cenvat credit - Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 - clearances made to other 100% EOU on inter unit transfer - Held that:- this Tribunal has allowed the refund claim filed by the respondent in its own case reported in [2015 (6) TMI 377 - CESTAT BENGLALORE]. Further the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Virlon Textile Mills Ltd. Vs. CCE, Mumbai [2007 (4) TMI 6 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] has held that deemed export are equivalent to physical export. The Hon’ble High court of Gujarat in the case of CCE Vs. NBM Industries [2011 (9) TMI 360 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] has held that refund could not be denied on the ground that it was case of deemed export. Since the Apex Court as well as the High Courts have specifically held that deemed exports are equivalent to physical export and therefore keeping in view the precedents of the High Court and the Supreme Court, I hold that clearances to an EOU is to be treated as export and refund of unutilized credit is allowed to the respondent-assessee. As far as application seeking additional grounds by the Revenue is concerned I allow the same on the ground that it is only an additional ground which is sought to be added in the existing grounds of appeal. - Decided against the revenue
|