Physical export required for CENVAT refund; domestic UNICEF supplies did not qualify under the applicable rule.

Refund of accumulated CENVAT credit was held inadmissible for supplies made within India to UNICEF where the goods were not physically exported out of India. For the period January 2016 to March 2016, the Tribunal accepted that the explanation to Rule 5 then required physical export of goods before refund could be claimed on unutilised credit. It found the lower appellate authority's reasoning correct and upheld rejection of the refund claim, as the vaccine supplies did not satisfy the export condition applicable during the relevant period.

---

---

Issues: Whether refund of accumulated CENVAT credit was admissible where the goods were not physically exported out of India and the supplies were made within India to UNICEF under the relevant export framework.

Analysis: The period involved was January 2016 to March 2016. The appellant was a 100% EOU claiming refund of unutilised CENVAT credit on the basis that the vaccine supplies to UNICEF were to be treated as exports. The Tribunal noted that the lower authority had rejected the claim because, for the relevant period, the explanation to Rule 5 required physical export of goods. The Tribunal accepted that this was the correct legal position for the period in question and found no reason to disturb the reasoned finding of the first appellate authority.

Conclusion: The refund claim was not admissible and the rejection of the claim was upheld against the assessee.

---