2011 (5) TMI 338 - AT - Central Excise

Refund of the unutilized credit - under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules - As per the Tribunal s decision in the case of CCE Jaipur Vs. Bhilwara Spinners Ltd. 2008 2007 -TMI - 4381 - CESTAT NEW DELHI wherein identical factual position was available inasmuch as the appellants had imported duty free material under advance licences and exported goods under advance licences the Tribunal held that refund of input credit under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 cannot be denied inasmuch as the appellant had not claimed rebate of duty under Central Excise Rules 2002 - Decided in favour of assessee. As regards the issue of filing of separate refund claim for the same quarter adjudicating authority note of the various decisions of the Tribunal and held that inasmuch as the same was a procedural violation which cannot result in denial of substantive benefit to the assessee the same is required to be condoned - The findings of Commissioner(Appeals) on the said issue are not being assailed by Revenue inasmuch as find that there is no ground to the above effect -As such we find no reason to interfere in the impugned order of Commissioner(Appeals) which stand passed by following the Tribunal decision.

Issues:
Adjournment request by Assessee, Refund of input CENVAT Credit and input service credit, Denial of refund claim by adjudicating authority, Filing separate refund claims for the same quarter, Applicability of Tribunal's decision on refund claim, Challenge to Commissioner(Appeals) decision, Entitlement to interest claim.

Adjournment Request by Assessee:
The Revenue appealed against the order passed by the Commissioner(Appeals) regarding the refund of input CENVAT Credit and input service credit. The respondents requested an adjournment, but the Tribunal proceeded with the hearing in their absence after hearing the ld.SDR for the Revenue.

Refund of Input CENVAT Credit and Input Service Credit:
The dispute revolved around the denial of the refund claim by the adjudicating authority based on the appellant's procurement of duty-free raw material and the manner of filing refund claims. The Commissioner(Appeals) referred to a Tribunal decision where a similar factual position led to the allowance of the refund claim under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, as the appellants did not claim rebate of duty under Central Excise Rules.

Filing Separate Refund Claims for the Same Quarter:
The Commissioner(Appeals) addressed the issue of filing separate refund claims for the same quarter, considering it a procedural violation that should not result in denying substantive benefits to the assessee. The Revenue did not challenge this finding, and the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner(Appeals) decision based on the precedent decisions of the Tribunal.

Applicability of Tribunal's Decision on Refund Claim:
The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner(Appeals) decision in favor of the assessee, citing the Tribunal's precedent decisions and rejecting the Revenue's argument about the double benefit to the assessee. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the Commissioner(Appeals) order, as the Tribunal's decision was applicable to the facts of the case.

Challenge to Commissioner(Appeals) Decision:
The Revenue challenged the Commissioner(Appeals) finding that allowing the refund claim of credit in terms of Rule 5 did not amount to double benefit to the assessee. However, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner(Appeals) decision, emphasizing that the Tribunal's decision was applicable and had not been stayed by the High Court.

Entitlement to Interest Claim:
The Tribunal rejected the appeals filed by the Revenue and noted that the cross objections filed by the respondent were in their favor. However, the claim for interest made in the written submissions was not entertained as it was not part of the lower authorities' orders, allowing the respondent to make a separate claim for interest before the lower authorities.

← Previous Next →