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>Appellant-assessee granted refund for export goods under Cenvat Credit Rules despite excess waste.</h1> <h3>Commissioner of Central Excise, Thane-II Versus M/s. Apple International Engg. Works P Ltd (Vice-Versa)</h3> Commissioner of Central Excise, Thane-II Versus M/s. Apple International Engg. Works P Ltd (Vice-Versa) - TMI Issues:Refund claim under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.Analysis:The appellant-assessee, a 100% EOU engaged in manufacturing engineering goods for export, filed refund claims under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules for the cenvat accumulated on goods exported. The appellant cleared waste and scrap generated during manufacturing in DTA on duty payment. The refund claims were initially modified by the Deputy Commissioner/Assistant Commissioner based on scrap generation ratios. The Commissioner (Appeals) later allowed the refund based on approved input-output norms from the date of application filing before the Development Commissioner. The Revenue contended that the benefit date should align with specific notifications. The appellant argued that Rule 5 does not limit refunds based on waste generation, emphasizing the inability to utilize accumulated credit due to full export production. The Tribunal noted Rule 5 conditions and held that excess waste generation should not deny credit refund, citing relevant case laws.The Tribunal analyzed Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules and Notification No. 05/2006, emphasizing two conditions: the appellant's accumulated credit due to goods exported under bond or letter of undertaking and the inability to utilize such credit. The lower authority's denial of refund based on excess waste generation was deemed unjustified, as the clearance of waste in DTA covered the duty payment on excess waste. The Tribunal dismissed Revenue's appeal, citing precedents like Kochar Sung-Up Acrylic Ltd., Philco Exports Ltd., and ASIL Industries Ltd., which emphasized the admissibility of refunds for inputs used in export goods manufacturing, regardless of waste generation or input-output norms. The Tribunal allowed the appellant-assessee's appeals and dismissed Revenue's appeals accordingly.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
