TaxTMI Login
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%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the appellant, being a 100% export-oriented unit, was entitled to refund of unutilized CENVAT credit attributable to duty paid on High Speed Diesel used for manufacturing operations. (ii) Whether refund of credit relatable to security services could be denied at the refund stage without first initiating recovery proceedings for alleged irregular availment of credit.
Issue (i): Whether the appellant, being a 100% export-oriented unit, was entitled to refund of unutilized CENVAT credit attributable to duty paid on High Speed Diesel used for manufacturing operations.
Analysis: The claim on HSD credit was treated as covered by the appellant's own earlier case. The credit arose from fuel used in the EOU's manufacturing activity and the Tribunal followed its prior view that an EOU entitled to avail CENVAT credit under the applicable notification could also seek refund of unutilized credit under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The objection based on the general definition of input was not accepted in the context of an EOU.
Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the appellant, and refund of the HSD-related credit was held admissible.
Issue (ii): Whether refund of credit relatable to security services could be denied at the refund stage without first initiating recovery proceedings for alleged irregular availment of credit.
Analysis: The credit on security services was treated as eligible credit already taken and reflected in the returns. The Tribunal held that if the department considered the credit irregular, the proper course was to invoke Rule 14 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 for recovery, rather than disallow the credit while processing the refund claim under Rule 5. The refund-stage objection was therefore not sustainable.
Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the appellant, and denial of refund on this ground was held unsustainable.
Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the appellant obtained refund relief on both disputed credit claims, with consequential relief as permitted by law.
Ratio Decidendi: An unutilized CENVAT credit claim by an EOU cannot be denied where the credit is otherwise permissible under the applicable notification, and alleged irregular credit must be recovered under the prescribed recovery provision before it can be disallowed at the refund stage.
TaxTMI 
