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 52 - AT - Central ExciseRefund of un-utilised CENVAT Credit - total amount of claim had been reduced by applying the formula prescribed under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 - Cash refund relating to the ‘segments and castings’ were rejected on the ground that the same were capital goods - HELD THAT:- This Tribunal for the earlier period in M/S. COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS VERSUS CCE & ST (LTU) , CHENNAI [2016 (2) TMI 580 - CESTAT CHENNAI], held that the formula adopted by the Revenue is incorrect having two values in the numerator and the denominator. Pursuant to the said remand order, the Adjudicating authority has adopted the FOB value in the numerator as well as in the denominator. Therefore, the present appeals are also remanded to the Adjudicating authority to calculate the refund claim by adopting the uniform value in the numerator as well as the denominator of the formula prescribed under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. Admissibility of CENVAT Credit - segments and castings HELD THAT:- Undisputedly, it is classified under Chapter sub-heading 84399100 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 as ‘capital goods’. Merely because the said capital goods gets exhausted after it is used in grinding the materials of approximately 150 MTs, it cannot be classified as an ‘input’ used for manufacture of finished goods viz. Bagassae Board falling under Chapter 44 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Thus, the cash refund of ₹ 3,69,874/- on the Segments has been correctly denied under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and accordingly not admissible to the Appellant. The impugned order is modified to the extent of remanding the matter relating to redetermination of cash refund applying the correct formula - Appeal allowed by way of remand.
|