Tribunal Upholds Commissioner Decision on CENVAT Credit Refund for 100% EOUs

The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision in a case involving the refund of CENVAT credit on supplies to 100% EOUs under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The department's appeal challenging the refund was dismissed, with the Tribunal citing precedents and determining that clearances to 100% EOUs could be treated as exports pre-01.03.2015. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the Commissioner (Appeals) order, ultimately ruling in favor of the respondents, registered manufacturers who had filed the refund claim.

---

---

Issues:
Department's appeal against refund of CENVAT credit for supplies to EOU under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.

Analysis:
The appeals were filed by the department challenging the Commissioner (Appeals) order granting refund of CENVAT credit on inputs/input services for supplies to EOU. The respondents, registered manufacturers, cleared goods to SEZ and 100% EOUs, filing a refund claim under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The claims were initially rejected, stating that clearances to 100% EOU under CT-3 cannot be treated as "exports" for Rule 5 refund. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the refund, citing precedents like the case of CCE and C Vs NBM Industries. The department contested this decision, arguing that post 01.03.2015, clearances to 100% EOU are not considered exports under Rule 5.

The department's representative reiterated the grounds of appeal, emphasizing the post-2015 amendment to Rule 5 regarding clearances to 100% EOU not being deemed exports. The respondent's counsel countered, stating that the relevant period was before 01.03.2015, and cited the Tribunal's judgment in the case of M/s Sai Polymers Vs CCE, Hyd-IV as precedent.

The Tribunal considered whether supplies to 100% EOU could be treated as physical exports pre-01.03.2015. Referring to the NBM Industries Ltd. case, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision, as per the precedent set in earlier judgments. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals, stating that the Commissioner (Appeals) order did not warrant any interference.

---