TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (5) TMI 557
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....und claims under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 of accumulated cenvat credit lying untilised in their cenvat credit account on the ground that they have made clearances to various mega projects/100% EOUs and cleared the goods to merchant exporter against CT-1. The said refund claim was rejected by the adjudicating authority. On appeal before the Ld. Commissioner (A) after verifying the documents and conditions, the refund claim was allowed by the Ld. Commissioner (A). Aggrieved from the said order, the Revenue has filed the application for stay of the impugned order alongwith the appeal. 3. As it is a case of refund of more than 2.9 crore, therefore, this Tribunal vide order dated 16.01.2017 held that the stay application as well ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... his submissions that the appellant has obtained necessary CT-1 certificate duly executed by the jurisdiction authority for clearances of goods without payment of duty. The said fact is not in disputes, therefore, the refund claims cannot be denied. He submits that the impugned order is to be upheld. 7. Heard both the sides and considered the submissions. 8. On careful consideration submissions made by both the sides, we find that in this case the refund claim has been filed by the respondent with regard to the unutilised cenvat credit lying in their cenvat credit account of clearances 100% EOUs, mega projects and clearances made to merchant exporter against CT-1 certificates. These facts are not in dispute. The sole ground taken by the R....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Ginni International Ltd. (Supra) was also challenged before the Apex Court and the Apex Court vide decision reported in 2007 (215) ELT A102 (SC) held while dismissing the Revenue s appeal against the Tribunal s 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. vs. Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise (Supra) was also challenged by the Revenue before the Apex Court and the Apex Court vide....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat the clearances made by one 100% EOU to another 100% EOU which are deemed exports are to be treated as physical exports for the purpose of entitling refund of unutilised cenvat credit contemplated under the provisions of Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004." 6. The learned counsel for the respondent has brought to our notice that aforesaid decision of the High Court of Gujarat was carried by the Revenue before the Apex Court in SLP No. 19717/2010 and the Apex Court while dismissing the appeal vide order dated 06.01.2011 observed thus:- In view of the decision of this Court in the case of Virlon Textile Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai, reported in 2007 (4) SCC (440) - 2007-TIOL-69-SC-CX, the special leave pet....