Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2020 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (1) TMI 232 - AT - Central ExciseRefund of accumulated CENVAT Credit - inputs used in manufacture of finished goods cleared by them to 100% EOU - Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 - N/N. 42/2001-CE (NT) - HELD THAT:- It is quite well established that Central Excise Rules and Authorities themselves provide for clearance/ supply of goods without payment of duty for being used in the manufacture of goods to be finally exported, subject to the above stated restriction and procedure. Hence by referring to the definition of “Export” as incorporated in Customs Act, 1962 for restricting the scope of Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, to cases of the physical exports outside India will be contrary to the provisions of Central Excise Rules and Notifications issued under the said Rules. It is a settled principle of interpretation of statue that it should be interpreted strictly as per the expressed provisions/ language employed in the statue, without referring to any external aid. It is only in case of ambiguity that the reference could have been made to external aids or the definitions in the similar statue. From plain reading of Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 along with Rule 19 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 and Notification No 42/2001-CE (NT), it is concluded that the refund of accumulated CENVAT Credit in terms of Rule 5 is admissible in the case of goods supplied for manufacture of goods exported. In the present case the claim of refund has been made in respect of goods which have been cleared by the appellants to 100 % EOU, without payment of duty by following the procedure as prescribed. It is not the case of the revenue that the goods were exempted goods, and for that reason cleared without payment of duty. If the goods were exempted goods, then the issue would not have been for refund of accumulated credit but for denial of the credit itself. There is no provision in the Central Excise Act or Rules other than Rule 19, which permits clearance of dutiable goods without payment of duty. There is no dispute in respect of this in the present case. Contrary decision of Tribunal in case of Tiger Steel Engineering Pvt Ltd [2010 (7) TMI 324 - CESTAT, MUMBAI] has been stayed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in TIGER STEEL ENGG. (I) PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER [2010 (12) TMI 1156 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] - Since we have held that the benefit of rule 5, is admissible in respect of clearances made without payment of duty in terms of Rule 19 of Central Excise Rules, 2002, we find that the decision of Madras High Court in case of BAPL INDUSTRIES LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA [2006 (11) TMI 68 - HIGH COURT, MADRAS] is distinguishable. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|