9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 74X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ome goods to 100% EOUs and claimed refund of CENVAT credit under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 (herein after referred to as CCR) for the period October, 20014 to December, 2014. This refund was rejected by the original authority on the ground that Rule 5 of CCR read with Notification No.27/2012-CE (NT) dated 18.06.2012 (which prescribes the conditions for sanctioning of refund) grants refund of accumulated CENVAT credit only in respect of exports and not in respect of supplies to 100% EOUs. Such supplies are treated as deemed exports but the deemed exports were not specifically covered by Rule 5 and therefore they are not entitled for refund of the CENVAT credit. The original authority has also relied on the fact that through Noti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rule 20 of the CER, 2002. Rule 5 of CCR, 2004 had not, at the material time, explicitly excluded deemed exports from the definition of exports as has been made clear by the amendment made in Rule 5 after 01.03.2015 which further has made the intention of the Government clearer. The said amendment in Rule 5 appears to be prospective only in the absence of anything contrary. Therefore, there is no legal basis to exclude deemed exports from Rule 5 and the appellant has to be held to be eligible for the refund of accumulated CENVAT credit in terms of Rule 5 of CCR, 2004 as it stood at the material time. I also find that GOI in the case of Bhuwalika Steel Industries reported in [2014 (311) ELT 971 GOI] had held that clearances made to 100% EOU ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .A/30890- 30891/2016 dated 27.09.2016 that such clearances should be treated as exports as per the decisions cited in paragraph 6 herein above and that refund of accumulated CENVAT credit under Rule 5 of CCR, 2004 in respect of such goods cleared to 100% EOU is admissible. Accordingly, I hold that the appellant is entitled to the refund of the accumulated CENVAT credit under Rule 5 of the CCR, 2004 on the subject clearance of goods made to 100% EOUs and that the appeal is, accordingly, liable to be allowed." 4. Aggrieved by the impugned order this appeal has been filed by the revenue. The learned departmental representative argued that refund cannot be sanctioned beyond the scope of Rule 5 of the CCR which did not provide for refund of ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
