2016 (3) TMI 711

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e refund on the unutilized cenvat credit for the period from July'09 to Sept'09.  The adjudicating authority in his OIO rejected the refund claim mainly on the ground that supplies made to EOU and SEZs are not qualified under Rule 5 of CCR.  On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order. 3. Ld. Advocate for the appellant submits that appellant supplied packing materials to SEZ as well as EOU by following the ARE-1 and ARE-3 procedures. He submits that supplies to SEZ and EOUs being exported they are entitled for all the benefits including the refund of credit under Rule 5.  He submits that the adjudicating authority without examining the eligibility of the refund and the documents produced by them rejected....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....a) wherein the Hon'ble High Court dismissed the Revenue appeal on this issue.  The relevant paragraphs is reproduced as under :- "3. The Division Bench after taking into account the detail submissions of the counsel appearing for the parties held and observed as under : "14. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and after considering their submissions, we are of the view that the issue raised by the Revenue in the present Tax Appeal is squarely covered by the decision of Amitex Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd. (supra), Commissioner of Central Excise v. Ginni International Ltd. and Sanghi Textiles Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise 2006 (206) E.L.T. 854 (Tri.-Bang.). So far as the decision of the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ts and not deemed exports should have been taken into account. 15. In view of the above settled legal position and considering the fact that the issue is settled by the Apex Court by those very judgments on which the Tribunal has placed reliance while deciding the case of the present respondent, we are of the view that no purpose will be served in keeping this matter pending, awaiting the out come of the Apex Court s decision in the case of Amitex Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd. (supra), especially when in two other matters, the Apex Court has already dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue. 16. In the above fact situation, we are of the view that no question of law much less any substantial question of law, arises out of the orde....