TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 685X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he above that Rule 5 facilitates the refund of Cenvat credit not merely of the excisable goods exported and therefore to say that Rule 5 provides for refund of un-utilized Cenvat only in the cases of export of service is incorrect. Accepting this interpretation of the Commissioner (Appeals) would lead to serious anomaly, which cannot be the intention of the legislation. Admittedly, the appellant has a huge credit which is now lying with the Revenue; the appellant has surrendered its Service Tax Registration and they have also paid the service tax liability as on the last date of their business. The law cannot, therefore, lead to a situation where a bonafide tax payer’s amount could be denied and withheld, for no fault of his. Further, in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion also on the same date; that they had also paid the service tax liability for the month of July, 2016 through cash as the input tax credit to the extent of ₹ 37,70,000/- which was available to them only in August, 2016; that since it was not able to adjust the same against any future service tax liability on account of closure of its business operations, their claim for refund being in order, requested for the same. They also relied on the ratio of the Hon ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of UOI Vs. Slovak India Trading Co. (P) Ltd. 2006 (201) ELT 559 (Kar.) to the effect that in the light of closure of the company, sanction of refund was fully justified since the assessee came out of the modvat scheme. It is also submi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... such refund claims. He also placed reliance on the following case laws in support of his contentions:- 1. M/s. Nissan Motor India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Chennai2018 (6) TMI 637 Cestat Chennai 2. M/s. Srinivasa Hair Industries Vs. CCE, Chennai2016 (6) TMI 673 Cestat Chennai 3. Delta Power Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Pondy2017 (3) TMI 849 Cestat, Chennai 4. Computer Graphics Ltd. Vs. CCE, Tirunelveli2016 (8) TMI Cestat Chennai 5. Welcure Drugs Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. CCE,Jaipur2018 (15) GSTL 257 (Raj.) 3. Per contra, Ld. DR, Shri L. Nandakumar, AC, supported the findings of the lower authorities. 4.1 I have considered the rival submissions and gone through the number of case laws relied on during t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ove formula includes the sum total value of all excisable goods cleared during the relevant period. It doesn t restrict the inclusion of value of the excisable goods exported, per se. Sub-rule (2) deals with a situation where duty drawback is allowed and further lays down that in such a situation, credit could not be refunded. Therefore, it is clear from the above that Rule 5 facilitates the refund of Cenvat credit not merely of the excisable goods exported and therefore to say that Rule 5 provides for refund of un-utilized Cenvat only in the cases of export of service is incorrect. Thus, I am of the view that accepting this interpretation of the Commissioner (Appeals) would lead to serious anomaly, which cannot be the intention of the le ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
