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>Tribunal grants refund claim for unutilized credit on exported goods, upholding Rule 5.</h1> <h3>BOMBAY DYEING & MFG. CO. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., RAIGAD</h3> BOMBAY DYEING & MFG. CO. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., RAIGAD - 2013 (290) E.L.T. 409 (Tri. - Mumbai) Issues:Refund claims under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 for unutilized credit on exported goods.Analysis:The case involved three appeals and stay applications challenging the Order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai. The appellant, a manufacturing company, filed refund claims under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 for unutilized Cenvat credit on inputs used in goods exported during April 2008 to June 2008. The Revenue appealed, arguing against the refund on various grounds, including the accumulation of credit due to higher input duty rates, limited export quantities, and the interpretation of relevant notifications. The Revenue also cited a previous CESTAT order regarding the interpretation of the phrase 'immediately on receipt of the inputs' in relation to credit availment delays. The Commissioner (Appeals) ruled in favor of the Revenue, leading to the appeals before the Appellate Tribunal.The appellant contended that they initially exported goods under one procedure, claimed and received duty rebates, then switched procedures and repaid the rebates with interest. Subsequently, they availed Cenvat credit equal to the repaid amount but could not utilize it, seeking a refund under Rule 5. The appellant argued that compliance with conditions allowed for alternate benefits, emphasizing that there was no time limit for credit availment under the Cenvat Credit Rules. The Revenue, represented by the Additional Commissioner, supported the lower Appellate Authority's findings.Upon careful consideration, the Tribunal found that the appellant had complied with conditions for refund under Rule 5 after repaying duty rebates and availing Cenvat credit. The Assistant Commissioner had correctly granted the refund based on the inability to utilize the credit during the relevant quarter. The Tribunal concluded that the original Adjudicating Authority's decision to sanction the refund was valid, indicating no flaws in the process. Consequently, the Tribunal granted unconditional waiver of pre-deposit for the refunded Cenvat Credit and stayed recovery during the appeal proceedings.
TaxTMI 