TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 992X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 100% EOU which are "deemed exports" are to be treated as physical exports for the purpose of entitling refund of unutilized Cenvat credit contemplated under the provisions of Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rule, 2004 - Accordingly, I hold, the Commissioner (Appeals) have erred in rejecting the refund claim. Thus, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The appellant to be granted refund by the Adjudicating Authority with 30 days, with interest as per Rules, on receipt of this order - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant-assessee. - APPEAL No.E/3105 & 3106/2009 (SM) - FINAL ORDER No.70842-70843/2016 - Dated:- 12-2-2016 - Mr. Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) Shri Karan Sachdev, Advocate, for Appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re rejected by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Noida vide impugned order dated 27.02.2009 observing that goods have been cleared to 100% EOU under CT-3 certificate, without payment of duty. Such goods after further processing were subsequently exported by the EOU (M/s Delphi). The meaning of export as derived from the Central Excise Act Customs Act, read together means- taking goods out of India, the clearance in the facts is deemed export and not actual export. Supportings in case of actual export like shipping bill, bill of loading duly certified by Customs Department is not filed. Only CT-3 certificate and re-warehousing certificates have been filed, which do not prove actual export. Aggrieved by the said order dated 27 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cifying the quantity of excisable goods which can be purchased from a specified manufacturer for the EOU. 6. Ld. Counsel further relies on the ruling of Hon ble Gujarat High Court in case of Commissioner of Central Excise Customs v/s NBM Industries, 2012 (276) E.L.T. 9 where it have been held, Refund of Cenvat credit was available on inputs used in manufacture of goods cleared by DTA unit to 100% EOU. Refund could not be denied on ground that it was a case of deemed expert, under Rule 5 of CCR, 2004. 7. Ld. A.R. for Revenue relies on the impugned order. 8. Having considered the rival contentions, I find that the issue is settled in favour of the appellant by Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of NBM Industries (supra). ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
