Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2014 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (4) TMI 460 - AT - Central ExciseRejection of the refund claim under Section 11B - Reversal of CENVAT Credit - Notification No. 108/95-CE dated 28.8.95 - Unjust enrichment - Held that:- appellant was directed to supply indigenously produced goods against advance licence. So the contention of the learned counsel that the impugned goods are trading goods cannot be accepted. However, it is seen that the adjudicating authority observed that the goods supplied are not entitled for any exemption and hence payment of duty on the said clearance was correct in law. It is also observed that the concept of supply against AROs is not germane to excise. Supplies made against the ARO is considered as deemed export in para 8 of EXIM Policy 2004 - 09 and the DGFT has to be approached for any relief on that account. The learned counsel fairly submits that they have produced the Project Import Certificate which was not properly dealt by the adjudicating authority. In my considered view, if the Department is treating the impugned goods as manufactured goods, the claim of exemption should be examined by the lower authority in the light of the exemption notifications. Benefit of exemption notification should be extended if eligible irrespective of the stage at which the claim is made. Since both the authorities have held that the impugned goods are manufactured goods, it is appropriate that the matter should be remanded to the adjudicating authority to examine the eligibility of exemption notifications. Accordingly, the matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority to examine the eligibility of the refund claim in view of the exemption notifications including the unjust enrichment, if any - Decided in favour of assessee.
|