TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (1) TMI 1423
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed export. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the respondent-assessee is a 100% EOU issued with private bonded warehouse license and in-bond manufacturing sanction order for manufacture and export of fine organic compounds. The respondent-assessee has filed 5 refund claims. The details of which are given below relating to different period. Appeal No. CENVAT Credit Period E/21610/2016 Rs.36,74,868/- January - March 2014 E/21611/2016 Rs.45,77,521/-- January - March 2013 E/21612/2016 Rs.41,84,180/- October - December 2013 E/21613/2016 Rs.41,42,759/- July - September 2013 E/21614/2016 Rs.40,54,070/- April - June 2013 Thereafter a show-cause notice was issued proposing to deny the refund on the ground that deem....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....scious policy decision of Government to treat the deemed exports as different from physical exports. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-assessee cited various decisions in support of his submission which have already been considered by the learned Commissioner (A) while allowing refund under Rule 5. He further submitted that this Hon'ble Bench vide Final Order No.2113/2016 dated 9.11.2016 in the respondents own case has allowed refund with respect to deemed exports. Further, in support of his submission, he relied upon the following decisions: i. CCE vs. Shilpa Copper Wire Industries: 2011 (269) ELT 17 (Guj.) ii. CCE vs. NBM Industries: 2013 (29) STR 208 iii. EI Dupont India Pvt. Ltd. vs. UOI: 201....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urisdictional Tribunal at Bangalore vide Final Order No.20067-20068/201.4 dated 022.01.2014 in the case of M/s. Solidius High Tech Products Pvt Ltd has held that deemed exports are to be treated on par with physical exports for granting refunds under Rule 5 of CCR 2004. It is further observed that Hon'ble Cestat, Tribunal in the appellant's own case Apotex Pharmachem (I) Pvt Ltd vs. CCE Bangalore vide Final Order No.21795-21797/2015 dated 07.07.2015 in Appeal Nos. E/348/2010, E/27848/13 & E/27849/13 have allowed their Appeals for refund of Cenvat credit for supplies to another 100% EOU. The Tribunal in the Order dated 07.07.2015 observed as follows: "13. The findings recorded in the impugned order that physical export is not....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Id. D.R. for Revenue on the judgment of the Single Bench of Honble Madras High Court in the case of BAPL Industries (supra) will not have the binding precedence, because as per settled principles of law, in case of two conflicting orders; one of a single judge and one by a division bench, the order issued by the division bench would prevail. 15. In view of the above, the impugned order so far as to the rejection. of refund claim on the ground of being time barred under Section 11B of the Act is sustained (Rs.3,31,2741-). The rejection of refund claim on the ground that supply of goods between two EOUs, is not eligible for refund being a deemed exportis set aside (Rs.4,92,0361-). 16. The appeals are disposed of in above terms." 9. I....