TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appellate tribunal grants refund for export of yarn, clarifies credit rules</h1> <h3>M/s RELIANCE CHEMOTEX INDUSTRIES Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE</h3> M/s RELIANCE CHEMOTEX INDUSTRIES Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE - 2014 (313) E.L.T. 325 (Tri. - Del.) Issues:1. Refund of CENVAT credit for export of yarn.2. Maintenance of separate credit accounts for Basic Excise Duty and Additional Excise Duty.3. Dispute over the sanction of refund claim for Additional Excise Duty.Analysis:1. The appellant, an exporter of yarn, sought a refund of CENVAT credit for inputs used in manufacturing yarn for export. The Asst. Commissioner approved a refund of Rs.87,10,153, to be given in cash, requiring debit entries in the CENVAT credit accounts.2. The appellant maintained separate credit accounts for Basic Excise Duty (BED) and Additional Excise Duty (AED) under the relevant Act. The dispute arose as the appellant debited Rs.75.74 lakhs from the BED account, but the refund claim of Rs.11.36 lakhs for AED was questioned.3. The lower authorities considered the AED refund erroneous due to insufficient balance in the AED account, even though the appellant debited the available balance and the remaining from the BED account. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the decision, stating that maintaining separate accounts led to the denial of the refund.4. The Commissioner (Appeals) acknowledged that a common CENVAT credit account for BED and AED would have allowed the appellant to utilize the surplus BED to pay AED. The appellant's contention of utilizing BED for AED payment to save the AED refund had merit, as Rule 3(4) permits interchangeability of BED and AED for excise duty payment.5. The appellate tribunal found that the appellant's plea for maintaining a common credit account was not against the rules and that the lower authorities' decision was unjustifiable. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant, granting consequential relief.This judgment clarifies the entitlement to CENVAT credit refund for exports, the permissibility of maintaining consolidated credit accounts, and the correct utilization of credit for different excise duties, emphasizing compliance with the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.
TaxTMI 