TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 279X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... favor of Revenue. - Appeal Nos. E/85323 to 85326/2014 Cross-Objection Nos. E/CO-91107 to 91110/2014 - Final Order Nos. A/85062-85065/2018-WZB - Dated:- 9-1-2018 - Shri C J Mathew, Member ( Technical ) Shri Ahibaran, Additional Commissioner ( AR ) for appellant Ms Deepali Kamble, Advocate for respondent ORDER Four appeals are disposed off in this proceeding initiated by Revenue against order-in-appeal no. 414-417/BPS/MUM/2013 dated 4 October 2013 of Commissioner of Central Excise Service Tax (Appeals), Mumbai IV setting aside the orders of the lower authority that rejected four claims of refund sought under rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. M/s Arrow Engineers, as supplier of goods to entities in Special Economic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stay accorded by Hon ble High Court of Bombay to the operation of the order of the Tribunal in re Tiger Steel Engineering (I) Pvt Ltd, the impugned order held that the lower authority had erred in denying the claim for refund. 3. The principle contention of Revenue in these appeals is that settled law has excluded supplies to units in special economic zones from the scope of exports that are eligible for privileges under the tax laws of the country. Learned Authorized Representative places reliance on the decision of the Tribunal in re Tiger Steel Engineering (I) Pvt Ltd to support this contention and the circulars of the Central Board of Excise Customs to demonstrate that the scope of these did not extend to refund of taxes/duties in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... yment of duty; or (ii) service tax on output service, and where for any reason such adjustment is not possible, the manufacturer or the provider of output service shall be allowed refund of such amount subject to such safeguards, conditions and limitations, as may be specified, by the Central Government, by notification: Provided that no refund of credit shall be allowed if the manufacturer or provider of output service avails of drawback allowed under the Customs and Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules, 1995, or claims rebate of duty under the Central Excise Rules, 2002, in respect of such duty; or claims rebate of service tax under the Export of Service Rules, 2005 in respect of such tax. xxxxx Explanation: For ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ensive, it is not possible to assign rates that accommodate stages of manufacture; the levy of duty to the extent of contribution to manufacture is facilitated by permitting debit of duty to the extent of liability contribution made in the prior stages. It is, therefore, not a mechanism for refund of duties that have already been loaded onto the goods but for restricting the levy to such as is intended by law. A harmonious construction of rule 3, 5 and 6 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 would amplify the intent: while, generally, input services/inputs used in manufacture/provision of exempt (including export) goods/service are excluded for consideration for the pool of credit under the CENVAT scheme, the compelling necessity to leach the duty f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Zones. 9. The decision of the Tribunal in Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune II v. Quality Screens [2008 (226) ELT 608 (Tri.-Mumbai)] makes it amply clear that only physical exports would entitle the refund under rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The decision of the Tribunal in Commissioner of Central Excise Service Tax, Rajkot v. Parth Trading Co [2016 (338) ELT 616 (Tri.Ahmd.)] relies upon the circular dated 28th April 2015. Likewise, the decision in Shri Bajrang Power Ispat Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur [2012 (282) ELT 108 (Tri.-Del.)] also relies upon the circular of the Central Board of Excise and Customs. The circular has been issued to allay the apprehensions of the trade that amendments to rule 5 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
