2014 (2) TMI 107

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ter hearing both sides on the stay petition and perusal of the records, we find that the appeal itself could be disposed of as it lies in a narrow compass. Accordingly, after allowing the application for the waiver of pre-deposit of amounts involved, we take the appeal itself for disposal. 3. Heard both sides and perused the records. 4. The issue involved in this case is regarding refund of amount of cenvat credit availed on the inputs/ input services/ capital goods which were utilised and consumed for manufacturing of goods which were cleared to 100% EOU, without payment of duty on ARE-1/ARE-3 and CT-3 certificates. 5. It is undisputed that clearances were affected by the appellant to EOUs on CT-3 and ARE-1/ARE-3 certificates. Sin....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on, viz. entitlement of the manufacturer to refund of Cenvat credit on inputs used in manufacture of goods cleared by DTA units to 100% export oriented unit. Case of the Revenue is that such refund is not available since Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules does not cover such a situation granting benefit of deemed export. It is Revenues case that only physical export would qualify for refund. We need not record the submissions at length since we find that similar issue was considered by a Division Bench of this Court in Tax Appeal No. 968 of 2008 [2011 (269) E.L.T. 17 (Guj.)]. One of the questions posed before the Court was as follows :              (i) Whether in the facts and c....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... in 2007 (215) E.L.T. A102 (S.C.) held while dismissing the Revenues appeal against the Tribunals order, that once Development Commissioner giving permission to the appellant, a 100% EOU, to sell goods in DTA up to a specified value, Revenue cannot go beyond the permission and dispute it holding that for fixing the limit only physical exports and not deemed exports should have been taken into account. It is also important to note that the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Sanghi Textiles Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise (supra) was also challenged by the Revenue before the Apex Court and the Apex Court vide order dated 16-8-2007 dismissed the Revenues appeal. While dismissing the said appeal, Apex Court has referred....