TMI Blog2008 (9) TMI 331X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d Shri T.K. Jayaraman, Member (T) Shri N. Anand, Advocate, for the Appellant. Ms. Joy Kumari Chander, Jt. CDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : T.K. Jayaraman, Member (T)].- This appeal has been filed against the Order-in-Appeal No. 32/2008-C.E dated 22-2-2008, passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals-I), Bangalore. 2. Shri N. Anand, learned Advocate appeared for the appellants and Ms; Joy Kumari Chander, learned Jt. CDR appeared for the Revenue. 3. We have heard both the sides in the matter. The appellants availed Cenvat credit on inputs which were used in the production of exported goods. Later, they filed the refund claim for an amount of Rs. 2,21,360/- on the ground that they had exported their final pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nvat Credit Rules, the refund of Cenvat credit is available only for credit of input which are used in the production of goods exported during the claim period. He has also stated that the refund of Cenvat credit of input cannot be claimed before final products are utilized/the inputs are exported. Holding such a view, he has upheld the order of the Original authority. 4. Aggrieved over the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals), the appellants have come before the Tribunal for relief. The learned Advocate has relied on a large number of case laws which hold that the credit in respect of final products exported should be refunded when they cannot be utilized. We are reproducing the case laws given in the Synopsis at the time of he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e refund of accumulated credit was admissible. 6. Chandra Cotton Fabrics v. CCE [2008 (226) E.L.T. 731 (T) = 2008 (86) R..L.T. 563 (T)] Held, when final product was exported under bond, refund of input credit could not be denied on the ground that credit could have been utilized by exporting goods under claim of rebate. 7. CCE v. Amar Bitumen and Allied Products P. Ltd. [2006 (202) E.L.T. 213 (S.C.)] Held, earlier order of Tribunal on same issue was not appealed against by the revenue and had attained finality. Hence appeal against subsequent order on same question was not maintainable. 5. The learned Jt. CDR reiterated the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals). 6. On a very careful e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
