2015 (2) TMI 1009 - AT - Central Excise

Denial of refund claim - Cash refund of accumulated CENVAT Credit - refund claims were disallowed on the ground that the CHA services and courier services are not eligible for Cenvat credit and secondly the export proceeds have not been received by the appellant - Held that - There is no dispute that the refund amount under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 which have been disallowed is in respect of the Cenvat credit availed in respect of CHA service availed for export of the goods and courier service availed in connection with manufacturing business of the appellant company. The department has denied the refund claims on the ground that the Cenvat credit in respect of these two services is not admissible. However this issue stands decided in appellant s favour in the appellant s own case by the Commissioner (Appeals) in previous case. In view of this the first ground on which the refund claims have been denied would no longer be valid. As regards the other ground for denial of the refund claims that the sale proceeds in respect of goods exported have not been received it is seen that this condition is neither there in Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules nor this condition has been prescribed in the Notification No. 5/2006-CE (NT) issued under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules. In view of this the denial of refund claim on the ground that the export proceeds have not been received is not sustainable. - impugned order is not sustainable. The same is set aside. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Disallowance of cash refund of accumulated Cenvat credit under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 for CHA services and courier services.
2. Disallowance of refund claims due to non-receipt of export proceeds.

Analysis:

*Issue 1: Disallowance of cash refund of accumulated Cenvat credit for CHA services and courier services*
The appellant, a 100% EOU, filed refund claims for accumulated Cenvat credit under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The Assistant Commissioner disallowed the refund for CHA services and courier services, stating they are not eligible for Cenvat credit. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) had previously ruled in the appellant's favor on this matter. The judge noted that the denial based on these services not being admissible was invalid, as per the previous appellate decision. Therefore, the disallowance on this ground was deemed unsustainable.

*Issue 2: Disallowance of refund claims due to non-receipt of export proceeds*
The second ground for disallowing the refund claims was the non-receipt of export proceeds. The appellant argued that this condition was not mentioned in the relevant Notification or Rule. The judge agreed, stating that Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules did not include a requirement for receipt of export proceeds. As such, the denial of the refund claim on this basis was found to be unsustainable. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeals were allowed. The judgment emphasized the importance of adhering to the specific provisions and conditions outlined in the relevant legal framework while considering refund claims related to Cenvat credit.