Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether refund of accumulated CENVAT credit was admissible under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules when the exported fabrics had undergone only packing and allied processes and the Department contended that those processes did not amount to manufacture under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
Analysis: The claim for refund was examined in the context of Rule 5, which permits refund where accumulated credit on inputs used in export clearances cannot be utilised. The processes applied to the fabrics were considered, but they were held not to amount to manufacture under Section 2(f). The Court nevertheless distinguished the authorities relied upon by the Department, noting that the cited circulars and decisions dealt with different export-benefit notifications and did not govern the present refund claim. On the facts, the inputs had been used in export goods and the credit remained accumulated and unutilised.
Conclusion: Refund of accumulated CENVAT credit under Rule 5 was allowable and the denial of refund was unsustainable.
Final Conclusion: The assessee was held entitled to refund of the accumulated credit relating to exported goods, and the appeal succeeded.
Ratio Decidendi: Where input credit relates to goods used in exports and cannot be utilised, refund under Rule 5 is allowable even if the particular operations on the goods do not amount to manufacture under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.