Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Home Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles News Highlights
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s. Auro Pharmaceutical & Fine Chemicals Pvt Ltd Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune

2017 (9) TMI 277 - CESTAT MUMBAI

Refund of unutilised CENVAT credit - export of goods - denial on the ground that finished goods attracted Nil rate of duty and also on the ground of time limitation - Held that: - even though the finished goods attracted Nil rate of duty the refund in respect of input used in such goods is available under Rule 5 as per the judgment in case of Gujarat Ambuja Exports Ltd [2010 (12) TMI 323 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD] - Rule 6(6)(5) also provides that where the goods are exported the Cenvat credit is admi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

s one year as provided under Section 11B, therefore refund claim which is filed within one year, refund cannot be rejected on the ground that it was not filed on quarterly basis. - Matter remanded to the adjudicating authority to pass a fresh order after verifying the other factual aspect - appeal allowed by way of remand. - Appeal No. E/1627 TO 1635/12-MUM - A/88713-88721/17/SMB - Dated:- 27-7-2017 - Mr Ramesh Nair, Member ( Judicial ) Shri. S. Narayanan, Advocate for the Appellants Shri. N .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

il rate of duty. In both the impugned orders, Ld. Commissioner(Appeals) upheld rejection of refund claim ordered by the original adjudicating authority on the ground that finished goods attracted Nil rate of duty, therefore there is no question of availing Cenvat Credit in terms of Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules on the input used in the manufacture of such goods. Accordingly, when Cenvat itself is not admissible, there is no question of accumulation of the Cenvat and consequential refund. The cla .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

pro India Ltd Vs. Union of India [2009(235)ELT 614(Bom)] (c) Hotline Teletube & Components Ltd Vs. CCE Indore[1998(102) ELT 33(Tri.)] He submits that as regard the issue that refund claim was not filed on quarterly basis, the same cannot be a reason for rejection of refund claim on the ground that overall period for filing refund claim is provided under Section 11B is one year. In the present case, refund claim was filed within one year, filling of claim on quarterly basis is a procedural re .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

here is no question of availing cenvat credit and accumulation thereof, in absence of non availability of Cenvat credit and accumulation thereof question of refund under Rule 5 does not arise. He placed reliance on the following decisions: (a) Suryamitra Exim Pvt Ltd Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. &Cus., Guntur[2012(283)ELT 504(Tri. Bang)] (b) Ashu Organics (I) Pvt Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Central excise, Thane-I[CESTAT Website reference No. 2017-5-23] 5. I have carefully considered the submissio .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Forum
what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version