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>CESTAT ruling grants export unit Cenvat credit refund, highlights importance of tax rules compliance</h1> <h3>M/s Indo Solar Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax, Noida</h3> M/s Indo Solar Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax, Noida - 2017 (357) E.L.T. 915 (Tri. - All.) Issues:Challenge to Order-in-Appeal rejecting refund claim under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.Analysis:The appellant, a 100% export-oriented unit manufacturing Photovoltaic Solar modules, panels, and cells, filed a refund claim of Rs. 2,66,28,814 for the period from July 2012 to December 2012 under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The claim was initially rejected by the Assistant Commissioner, leading to an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), Noida. The matter was remanded back for fresh adjudication, where the Original Authority rejected the claim citing various provisions and notifications. The appellant further appealed, arguing that as they exported goods under bond, Rule 6(6) exempted them from Rule 6(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the rejection, stating that the goods were wholly exempt from Excise duty and thus not eligible for Cenvat credit.The appellant then appealed to the CESTAT Allahabad, contending that the goods were exported under bond, making Rule 6(1) inapplicable to them. They relied on legal precedents to support their claim. The CESTAT, after considering the arguments, found that duty foregone on inputs used in the manufacture of goods cleared in the domestic tariff area was payable, indicating that the goods were not exempt when cleared domestically. Therefore, the CESTAT held that the appellant was entitled to avail Cenvat credit, especially since the credit was not recovered under Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules. The Tribunal directed the Original Authority to refund the amount claimed within 60 days, allowing the appeal and disposing of the miscellaneous application.This judgment highlights the importance of understanding the intricacies of Cenvat credit rules, especially in cases involving export-oriented units and refund claims under Rule 5. It underscores the significance of legal arguments supported by relevant provisions and precedents in challenging and overturning decisions related to tax refunds in excise and customs matters.
TaxTMI 