TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (8) TMI 758
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pheld the Order-in-Original. Since the issue involved in all these four appeals is identical, therefore, all the four appeals are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellants are 100% EOU engaged in the manufacture of export of RF/Microwave components. Appellants filed four refund claims seeking cash refund of unutilized CENVAT credit in terms of Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Notification No.27/2012-CE dated 18.6.2012. The Original Authority held that the appellants were entitled to cash refund only in respect of goods physically exported and in respect of goods cleared to other EOU termed as Deemed Exports in view of the definition of 'export goods' inserted in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the same has been passed without properly appreciating the facts and the law. He further submitted that there is no dispute about the fact that the appellants are 100% EOU and holders of a valid Letter of Permission issued by Development Commissioner, Cochin, Special Economic Zone and a Customs Bonded Warehouse License and In-bond Manufacture Sanction Order issued by the Central Excise /Customs Authorities in terms of Section 58 and Section 65 of the Customs Act, 1962. He further submitted that the conclusion arrived by the Assistant Commissioner is that appellant had not physically exported their goods but cleared the same to another EOU which is not equivalent to physical export. He further submitted that in view of para 6.13 of Foreign ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n, the appellant relied upon the decision rendered in the case of CCE vs. Shilpa Copper Wire Industries: 2011 (269) ELT 17. He further submitted that the decision of the Tribunal in the case of CCE vs. Trimurti Plast Containers Pvt. Ltd.: 2018 (364) ELT 432 (Tri.-Mum.) is not applicable in the present case. The last submission of the learned counsel was that the original authority has held that the amount shall be allowed to lapse as per Section 142 of Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 is not sustainable in law because there is no dispute about the fact that at the time of filing the refund claim, the appellant had debited the whole amount in their CENVAT credit account as required by the then Notification No.27/2012-ST dated 18.6.201....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....CCE, Pune-III vs. Trimurti Plast Containers Pvt. Ltd.: 2018 (364) ELT 432 (Tri.-Mumbai) • Jimtex Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Thane-I : 2018 (9) GSTL 290 (Tri.-Mum.) 5.2 He further submitted that the decision of the Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Trimurti Plast Containers Pvt. Ltd. (supra) is on identical facts wherein the Tribunal has held that the assessee is not entitled to cash refund when there is no physical export. 6. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the material on record, I find that, in the present case, appellant is a 100% EOU who has admittedly supplied the goods to another EOU and filed refund claims under Rule 5 read with Notification No.27/2012 dated 18.6.2012. Further, I find that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the said circular is for clearance to SEZ as regard the SEZ there is specific provision in SEZ Act itself that supplies made to SEZ is exports therefore this circular is not applicable for 100% EOU. As regard the judgments, I find that all the judgments pertain to period prior to 1-3-2015, therefore same are not applicable in the present case particularly when definition of export goods is amended. As per my above discussions, impugned order is not sustainable, same is set aside. Revenue's appeal is allowed. CO stands disposed of." 6.1 Further, I find that as far as rejection of cash refund by both the authorities is concerned, there is no infirmity and I uphold that said findings. Further, the findings of the original authority that th....