TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 74X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /31254/2018 - Dated:- 24-9-2018 - Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) And Mr. P. Venkata Subba Rao, Member (Technical) Shri A.V.L.N. Chary, Superintendent/AR for the Appellant. Shri Sudhakar R. Challa Ms. K. Sandhya Reddy, Advocates for the Respondent. ORDER Per: P.V. Subba Rao. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the Revenue against the Order-in- Appeal No. HYD-EXCUS-001-APP-151-16-17 dated 17.03.2017. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that the appellant herein are manufacturers of pharmaceuticals. They have also supplied some 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 Dece ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pect of the claims involved in the appeal pertain to the period October 2014 to December 2014. The said period is prior to the amendment in law carried out as above. During the relevant period, Rule 5 of the CCR and Notification No. 27/2012-CE (NT) dated 18.06.2012 had prescribed refund of credit of duty paid on the inputs and tax paid on input services which had been used in the manufacture of final products which were cleared for export under bond or under LUT. It is not disputed that the subject goods had, in fact, been removed under ARE-3 s against within the provisions of 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Madras High Court had taken a different view in the case of BAPL Industries Vs UOI reported in [2007 (211) ELT 23 (Mad)], I respectfully note that the decision of the Hon ble Gujarat High Court is the latest on the matter which is also in consonance with the view of GOI in the revision case referred above and in tune with the law as was sought to be amended by the amendments effected with effect from 01.03.2015 in Rule 5 of CCR, 2004. 7. The Hyderabad Bench of the Hon ble CESTAT on an identical issue, while referring to the decisions cited supra, has held vide final order No.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 a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the period prior to the introduction of explanation (1A) to Rule 5 of CCR, supplies to 100% EOU will entitle the assessee to refund of accumulated credit under Rule 5. Relying on this order of this Bench, the first appellate authority has ruled in favour of the respondent herein. 6. We have examined the matter and the arguments on the both sides. We find that in an identical matter in the case of Sai Polymers (supra) this very bench had held that Rule 5 of CCR also entitles one to refund of CENVAT credit in case of deemed exports by way of supply to 100% EOU prior to the introduction of explanation (1A). We find no reason to deviate from the decision of this Bench in this case. We follow the ratio of this decision and find that the impu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
