2007 (11) TMI 94 - AT - Central Excise

Manufacturer-Exporters Granted CENVAT Credit Refund by Appellate Tribunal

BALA HANDLOOMS EXPORT CO. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX

BALA HANDLOOMS EXPORT CO. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX - 2008 (223) E.L.T. 100 (Tri. - Chennai), 2009 (15) S.T.R. 483 (Tri. - Chennai) Issues:1. Refund claims rejection related to accumulated CENVAT credit.2. Interpretation of the term 'manufacture' for the purpose of export.3. Comparison with previous Tribunal decisions.4. Apex Court's interpretation of processes amounting to manufacture.5. Denial of refund under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules.6. Applicability of Circulars and Notifications.7. Eligibility for refund of accumulated CENVAT credit.Issue 1: Refund claims rejection related to accumulated CENVAT creditThe impugned order upheld the rejection of two refund claims totaling above Rs.12 lakhs, pertaining to accumulated CENVAT credit of M/s. Bala Handlooms Export Company (BHEC) for the last quarter of 2004 and the first quarter of 2005. The denial was based on the ground that the appellants had not undertaken any manufacturing process on the purchased fabrics, which were later exported after various operations.Issue 2: Interpretation of the term 'manufacture' for the purpose of exportThe appellants argued that the definition of manufacture for export purposes was broader, citing the Exim Policy's interpretation that certain processes, not considered manufacturing under Central Excise Law, would qualify as manufacture for export. However, the lower authorities and the Commissioner (Appeals) found that the appellants had not undertaken any process amounting to manufacture on the fabrics before export.Issue 3: Comparison with previous Tribunal decisionsThe appellants referenced a Tribunal decision in CCE vs. Weston Electronics, where export packing was considered as constituting manufacture for the purpose of granting benefits on imports. However, the original authority followed the Apex Court's decision in CCE Vs. Maharashtra Fur Fabrics Ltd., which emphasized specific processes akin to manufacturing for determining eligibility for refunds.Issue 4: Apex Court's interpretation of processes amounting to manufactureThe Apex Court's interpretation of processes like bleaching, dyeing, printing, and others under specific notifications was crucial in determining whether the appellants had subjected the purchased fabrics to any manufacturing process. The Court's focus on the specific expressions and their relevance to manufacturing processes guided the decision to deny the refund under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules.Issue 5: Denial of refund under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit RulesThe denial of the refund was primarily based on the finding that the appellants had not undertaken any manufacturing process on the purchased fabrics before export. This decision was in line with the interpretation of the provisions of Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, which govern the refund of accumulated credit in specific circumstances.Issue 6: Applicability of Circulars and NotificationsThe appellants and the lower authorities referred to Circulars and Notifications to support their arguments regarding the broader interpretation of manufacturing processes for export benefits. However, the Tribunal clarified that these references were not directly relevant to the dispute at hand, emphasizing the specific legal definitions and interpretations applicable in this case.Issue 7: Eligibility for refund of accumulated CENVAT creditAfter considering all submissions and legal provisions, the Tribunal found that the appellants, as manufacturer-exporters, were eligible for the refund of accumulated CENVAT credit claimed. The decision was based on a comprehensive analysis of relevant legal positions, including the provisions of Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, leading to the allowance of the appeal and granting of the refund.The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Chennai, in the cited case of 2007, addressed various legal issues related to the rejection of refund claims concerning accumulated CENVAT credit. The detailed analysis covered interpretations of manufacturing processes for export, comparisons with previous Tribunal decisions, the Apex Court's stance on processes amounting to manufacture, denial of refund under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, the applicability of Circulars and Notifications, and the ultimate eligibility for the refund of accumulated credit. The decision highlighted the importance of specific legal definitions and provisions in determining the appellants' entitlement to the refund, ultimately allowing the appeal and granting the refund.