TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (3) TMI 510
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... order-in-appeal no. 440-441/2017 CT dated 16 November 2017 of Commissioner of Central Tax (Appeals-II), Bangalore, pertaining to two claims for refund of CENVAT credit of Rs. 59,98,991/- and Rs. 52,59,663/- relating to April-June 2013 and July-September 2013 respectively. The appellant, a manufacturer of 'sheet metal components' preferred the claim under rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 on clearances effected to '100% Export Oriented Units' that were held, under law, to be at par with physical exports during the relevant period in time. 2. The refund claims, rejected by the original authority on the ground that the provisions entitled physical exports alone to that privilege, was allowed by the first appellate authority by relying up....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., the rejection was upheld. 3. We have heard both Learned Counsel for the appellant and Learned Authorised Representative. It is seen that, while the impugned order has disposed off the rejection of claims for the two periods for implied benefit of two different privileges, the appeal pertaining to the earlier period had, in effect, been disposed off by the first appellate authority by rejecting the ground, to the effect that deemed exports do not qualify for refund under rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, adopted in the original order. The rejection on a fresh ground that was not indicated to the appellant vitiates the fresh proceedings that rejected the claim for refund. The first appellate authority had clearly directed the grant of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al Ltd. (supra) was also challenged before the Apex Court and the Apex Court vide decision reported in 2007 (215) E.L.T. A102 (S.C.) 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. v. Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise (supra) was also challenged by the Revenue before the Apex Court and the Apex Court vide order dated ....
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 unutilized Cenvat credit contemplated under the provisions of Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004." (Emphasis supplied)" In the light of which the sole reason for rejection of the refund claim is rendered unsustainable. The upholding of the rejection of this very claim of refund on a different ground by the first appellate authority is contrary to the principles of natural justice. Accordingly, we find no fault with the order of the first appellate authority impugned before us by Revenue and hold that the second order of the first appellate authority impugned before us by th....