2016 (11) TMI 1327

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....504/- in their Cenvat Credit and filed a rebate claim for the same. After due process of law, vide OIO No. 169/2010 dated 23.11.2010, the adjudicating authority sanctioned the rebate claim of the appellant. Aggrieved by the above order of the adjudicating authority, the department approached the Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that (i) the appellant had procured raw materials from the local suppliers/imported and availed the Cenvat credit on the said inputs and cleared the same as such to their own SEZ unit located at MEPZ, Tambaram, (ii) that when the inputs are removed as such, they are covered under the provisions of Rule 3 (5) of CCR, 2004, relating to removal of inputs as such which states that Cenvat Credit may be utilised for p....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Rule 3 (4) & Rule 3 (5) of CCR, 2002. Since in the instant case, the exports were made during the month of July2010, for which the appellants are covered under the provisions of Rule 3(5) of CCR, 2004, which states that Cenvat credit may be utilized for "payment of an amount equal to Cenvat Credit taken on inputs" and that the payment of an amount equal to Credit taken cannot be treated on par with payment of duty which is necessary for claiming rebate in terms of the provision of Rule 18 of CER, 2002. Hence, he concluded that the rebate claims sanctioned by the adjudicating authority is not correct by setting aside the OIOs and allowed the Departmental appeals. 3. The Ld. Counsel, Shri P.C. Anand, appeared on behalf of the appellant and....