2012 (7) TMI 569 - HC - Central Excise

High Court upholds refund for PVC wire manufacturers under Cenvat Credit Rules

Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore-III Commissionerate Versus Motherson Sumi Electric Wires

The High Court affirmed the decision of the Commissioner of Appeals and Tribunal in granting a refund of Cenvat credit to manufacturers of PVC Insulated ... Refund of Cenvat credit in terms of Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, read with Notification 11/2002 – Held that:- Assessees used the inputs and have exported the impugned goods and the refund is only in respect of input credit attributable to the inputs utilized in the exported goods - duty paid inputs are used in the manufacture of finished products which are exported - assessees have complied with Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Therefore, they are in law entitled to refund of the unutilized Cenvat Credit in their account – In favor of assessee Issues:- Appeal against the order of the Tribunal upholding the refund of Cenvat credit under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, read with Notification 11/2002.- Rejection of refund claims by the original authority based on non-fulfillment of conditions of Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002, read with Notification No.ll/2.005-CE(NT) as amended.- Commissioner of Appeals allowing the refund claims stating fulfillment of conditions of Rule 5 and not requiring proof of one-to-one correlation of inputs with exported goods.- Tribunal's decision to not interfere with the appellate authority's order granting refund based on correct application of Rule 5.Analysis:The High Court of Karnataka dealt with an appeal against the Tribunal's decision upholding the refund of Cenvat credit to manufacturers of PVC Insulated wires under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, along with Notification 11/2002. The original authority had rejected the refund claims, citing non-compliance with Rule 5's conditions. However, the Commissioner of Appeals allowed the appeals, emphasizing that the assessees met the Rule 5 conditions and were entitled to the refund. The Commissioner clarified that proving a direct link between inputs and exported goods was unnecessary. Consequently, the Tribunal declined to interfere with the appellate authority's decision, noting that the assessees had used inputs for exported goods and were accumulating unutilized credit. The High Court affirmed this decision, stating that the assessees had lawfully fulfilled Rule 5 requirements and were entitled to the refund, as determined by both appellate authorities. No substantial legal questions were found, leading to the dismissal of the revenue's appeals.