2024 (6) TMI 1105 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal Overturns Refund Denial, Confirms CENVAT Credit for Exported Goods with Nil Duty, Grants Appeal Benefits.

The Tribunal overturned the rejection of the appellant's refund claim under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, finding the denial incorrect. It ... Refund of the reversed / payment of CENVAT credit amount and interest - final products in question that attracted nil rate of duty were exported and thus they become eligible for CENVAT credit of duty paid by them on the inputs used in the manufacture of such final products - HELD THAT:- The issue in the present appeal is no more res integra, since the same issue stands settled in their favour in JOLLY BOARD LTD VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE [2014 (3) TMI 124 - CESTAT MUMBAI] where it was held that 'In this case, appellant has not executed any bond for export of the goods. If the goods are exempted, execution of bond was not required.' There are no merit in the impugned order of the first appellate authority and the same is set aside - appeal allowed. Issues: 1. Rejection of refund claim based on CENVAT credit rules for duty paid on common inputs used in the manufacture of final products with nil rate of duty. 2. Interpretation of Rule 6 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 regarding eligibility for CENVAT credit on inputs used in manufacturing goods chargeable to nil duty if exported. Issue 1: Rejection of Refund Claim: The appellant availed CENVAT credit of duty paid on common inputs used in manufacturing final products with nil duty rate. They reversed the credit and filed a refund claim under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, as the final products were exported. The Assistant Commissioner rejected the claim, upheld by the first appellate authority. The main issue was whether the authorities were correct in rejecting the refund claim. The appellant argued that similar issues were settled in their favor by various orders. The Tribunal found merit in the appellant's argument, citing precedents like Jolly Board Ltd. vs. CCE and Repro India Ltd. vs. UOI. The Tribunal concluded that the denial of refund was incorrect, setting aside the first appellate authority's order and allowing the appeal with consequential benefits as per law.Issue 2: Interpretation of Rule 6 of CENVAT Credit Rules: The Tribunal analyzed the interpretation of Rule 6 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 regarding the eligibility for CENVAT credit on inputs used in manufacturing goods chargeable to nil duty if exported. Referring to the case of Drish Shoes Ltd., the Tribunal highlighted that an assessee manufacturing goods with nil duty rate is eligible to avail CENVAT credit on inputs used in manufacturing such goods if they are exported. The Tribunal emphasized the exception clause in Rule 6(5) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002 and Rule 6(6) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, allowing for the credit on inputs used in manufacturing goods chargeable to nil duty and exported. The Tribunal's decision was based on a comprehensive analysis of relevant legal provisions and precedents, ultimately ruling in favor of the appellant's eligibility for CENVAT credit in such circumstances.In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment addressed the issues of rejection of the refund claim and the interpretation of Rule 6 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The decision provided a detailed analysis based on legal provisions, precedents, and the specific circumstances of the case, ultimately allowing the appellant's appeal and granting consequential benefits.