At, Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal West Zonal Bench At Ahmedabad
By, THE HONORABLE JUSTICE: DR. D.M. MISRA
For Petitioner: Anand Nainavati, Advocate And For Respondents: N. Satwani, Authorised Representative
1. This appeal is filed against OIA-207/2012-AHD-II-CE/AK/COMMR-A-/AHD dt. 24/08/2012 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) - AHMEDABAD-II.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant had filed refund claim of accumulated CENVAT Credit on monthly basis on export of goods in accordance with Rule 5 of CCR 2004 for the period March 2009 to Sept. 2009. Alleging that the inputs were not used in a particular month, for the manufacture of exported goods, but used in the subsequent months, the cash refund for that particular month was denied, to the Appellant involving a total amount of Rs. 13,61,459/-, which also included the credit availed on sugar cess. Aggrieved by the said rejection of the refund claim, the appellant filed an appeal before the ld. Commissioner (Appeals), who in turn, rejected their appeal and hence the present appeal.
3. The ld. Advocate for the appellant submits that they have filed seven monthly refund applications of accumulated Cenvat Credit became due to them for export of the goods, during the said period under Rule 5 of CCR, 2004 read with Notification No. 5/2006-(CE)NT dt. 14.3.2006. He submits that the Authorities below had erroneously rejected their refund claim on the ground that the inputs received in a particular month had not been used in the same month for manufacture and export of the goods albeit the same had been used in the subsequent months. It is his contention that there is no dispute of the fact that the inputs were received in the factory and had been used in the manufacture of export of goods hence, the credit accumulated due to export of the goods for the entire period of March 2009 to Sept. 2009, ought to have allowed to them. As far as credit on Sugar cess is concerned, the ld. Advocate for the appellant fairly submits that the credit on the same is not admissible, accordingly, they are not entitled to cash refund of the same.
4. Ld. AR For the Revenue reiterated the findings of the ld. Commissioner (Appeals).
5. I find that undisputedly the inputs were used in the manufacture of finished goods which were ultimately exported resulting into accumulation of the Cenvat Credit on which the appellant claimed cash refund as per Rule 5 of CCR, 2004. The contention of the Revenue is that the inputs which were received in a particular month fought to have been used in the same months, otherwise the appellants are not eligible to cash refund of the credit accumulated, even though the inputs are used in the subsequent months in the manufacture of goods which were ultimately exported. I do not find merit in the contention of the Revenue as the objective is to allow the cash refund of the accumulated CENVAT credit availed on the inputs and used in the manufacture of export of goods, but the credit could not be utilised for payment of duty for home consumption. It is not the intentions that there should be one-to-one relationship between the inp
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
uts and the finished goods in claiming cash refund of the credit, accumulated due to export. Thus, the appellant's are eligible to the cash refund of the accumulated credit, except the amount of credit availed on sugar cess, included in the said refund claim. The impugned order is modified accordingly and the Appeal is disposed off.