Appellant wins refund claim for Cenvat credit on duty inputs due to valid export proof

The court ruled in favor of the appellant, a 100% EOU seeking a refund of Cenvat credit for duty inputs. The appellant's claim was rejected due to missing original EP copies of shipping bills. However, the judge held that certified photocopies attested by the appellant, containing Customs Officers' certification, were sufficient proof of export as per the notification's requirements. The judge overturned the rejection of the refund claim, citing a previous Tribunal decision supporting this interpretation and allowed the appeal.

---

---

Issues: Refund of Cenvat credit for duty inputs procured by a 100% EOU, rejection of refund claim due to missing original EP copies of shipping bills, interpretation of Notification no. 5/2006-CE (NT) regarding production of certified shipping bills, grounds for cash refund denial under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.

Analysis:
The appellant, a 100% EOU, availed Cenvat credit for duty inputs but could not utilize it for excise duty payment on goods cleared for home consumption. They applied for a cash refund of the accumulated Cenvat credit for 44 shipping bills filed from April 2009 to September 2009. The original EP copies of 24 shipping bills were produced, while for the remaining 20 exports, only photocopies attested by the appellant were available as the original EP copies were lost. The department rejected the refund claim for the 20 shipping bills without original EP copies, citing non-compliance with Notification no. 5/2006-CE (NT) requiring certified shipping bills. The Adjudicating Authority and Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the rejection, leading to the appeal.

The appellant's counsel argued that the goods covered by the shipping bills were duly exported and accepted by the competent authority, making the cash refund denial unjustified. Reference was made to a Tribunal judgment in a similar case supporting the appellant's position. The Departmental Representative reiterated the necessity of producing original EP copies as per the notification's conditions.

The judge, after considering both sides' submissions and reviewing the records, found that the rejection of the refund claim based on missing original EP copies was incorrect. The judge clarified that the notification required copies of shipping bills certified by Customs Officers to prove export, not specifically original EP copies. Therefore, attested photocopies containing Customs Officers' certification could suffice if the EP copies were lost. The judge cited a previous Tribunal decision supporting this interpretation and ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal.

---