2012 (6) TMI 169

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d input services under rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules read with Notification no. 5/2006-CE(NT) dated 14.03.2006 for the months of December 2009, January 2010, February 2010 and March 2010. Refunds were filed on the ground that almost all of their clearances of finished goods are meant for exports and they do not have any clearances or have very few clearances to the Domestic Tariff Area, and they are unable to utilize the CENVAT credit accumulated in their account. These refund claims were sanctioned by Additional Commissioner of Central Excise, Belapur vide order-in-Original no. R-293-296/10-11 all dated 31.12.2010. Revenue challenged the orders-in-original passed by the Additional Commissioner before the Commissioner of Central Excise ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... when the finished excisable goods/inputs semi-finished goods were lying in a factory as closing balance, the CENVAT credit involved on the said inputs/semi-finished goods/finished goods has been refunded. Rule 5 of the said rules does not provide that refund is to be granted when Cenvat Credit is availed. The refund is to be allowed only of the inputs and input services which are used in relation to the manufacture of other products, which are cleared for export under bond or letter of undertaking. (d) There may be a situation where in a particular month, there is availment of CENVAT credit due to purchase of inputs, but no exports. On the other hand, there may be a situation where there is no purchase of inputs, but exports have been m....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y in the present case and he has held that impugned orders are bad in law and cannot sustain and he has allowed the Revenue's appeals without going into the merits of the case. 3. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant stated that the Commissioner of Central Excise did not challenge the order of the Additional Commissioner of Central Excise in its entirety. Inasmuch as no dispute was raised with regard to the refund of input services and the refund order was reviewed only in respect of credit of duty paid on the inputs. He further stated that the Commissioner (Appeals) has committed a error in law in setting aside the orders of refund only on the ground that the Additional Commissioner of Central Excise has no jurisdiction to ex....