TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (2) TMI 53
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re-quantification of refund amount. The issue in both the appeals is identical, therefore both the appeals are being disposed of by this present common orders. The details of appeals are as under: Appeal No. OIA No. Period Amount E/20015/2014 No.494/2013-CE Oct. Dec. 2009 Rs.15,40,348/- E/20016/2014 No.495/2014-CE Jan. Mar. 2010 Rs.41,684/- 2. For the sake of convenience, the facts of appeal No. E/20015/2013 are taken. Briefly the facts of the case are that the appellant is a 100% EOU engaged in the manufacture and export of pharmaceutical products issued with private bonded warehouse and IBM sanction order dated 11.6.2004. The appellants have filed a refund claim as stated supra under Rule 5 of CENVAT....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the appeal filed by the department and directed the original authority to re-compute the amount. Aggrieved by the said orders, the appellants have filed these two appeals. 3. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the appellate authority has passed the impugned order without considering the submissions of the appellant and without properly appreciating the position of law. He further submitted that the learned Commissioner (A) has wrongly remanded the case back to the original authority for re-quantification because the original authority has not quantified or shown the actual amount of refund which is liable for rejection....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ch the ship or the aircraft in which such goods are loaded, leaves India, or (ii) if the goods are exported by land, the date on which such goods pass the frontier, or (iii) if the goods are exported by post, the date of despatch of goods by the Post Office concerned to a place outside India. 5.1 She further submitted that in the case of CCE vs. GTN Engineering (I) Ltd.: 2012 (281) ELT 185(Mad.) and CCE vs. Celebrity Designs India Pvt. Ltd.: 2015 (321) ELT 221 (Mad.) where the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in a similar situation has held as under: "7. In an identical circumstance, this Court considered the above-said issue in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore v. GTN Engineering (I) Ltd. repo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ue in respect of the period in question. The relevant portion of the said notification reads as follows : "Refund of Cenvat credit under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules - Procedure In exercise of the powers conferred by rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the said rules), the Central Government hereby directs that refund of Cenvat credit of specified duty allowed in respect of inputs used in or in relation to the manufacture of final products which are cleared for export under bond may be allowed subject to the safeguards, conditions and limitations, set out in the Appendix to this notification. APPENDIX 1 .. 2 .. 3 .. 4 .. 5 .. 6. The appli....