Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2019 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (11) TMI 950 - CESTAT MUMBAIRefund of accumulated unutilised CENVAT credit - inputs and input services used for goods manufacture and supplied to 100% EOU - deemed exports - Rule 5 of CENVAT credit Rules, 2004 - HELD THAT:- The Commissioner (Appeals) had observed that the Assistant Commissioner i.e. refund sanctioning Authority had wrongly interpreted Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 by stating that refund under this rule is permissible only if the goods are exported out of India and in case finished goods are cleared to 100% EOU against CT-3 which is considered as deemed export, refund is not admissible and such observation by wrong interpretation Notification No. 5/2006-CE (NT) dated 14.03.2006 as superseded by Notification No. 27/2012-CE (NT) dated 18.06.2012 is erroneous, since the spirit behind Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 is to allow refund of CENVAT credit against deemed export also. No irregularity and illegality can be attributed to such an observation made by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) so as to invoke appellate jurisdiction of this Tribunal. Further this Tribunal in respondent’s own case COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE & CUSTOMS, NASIK VERSUS KIRAN ELASTOMERS PVT. LTD. AND (VICE-VERSA) [ [2017 (12) TMI 269 - CESTAT MUMBAI ] for the period prior to period under dispute had allowed refund to the respondent by holding that there was no significant difference as regards term ‘export’ for the purpose of Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, during pre and post amendment introduced to Rule 5 in 2012. Appeal dismissed.
|