2021 (3) TMI 238

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, Chennai ['the Tribunal' for brevity] in Final Order No.40611/2018. 2. The appeal has been admitted on 18.09.2020 to decide the following substantial questions of law: "i) Whether, the Tribunal was justified in allowing the refund of the accumulated CENVAT Credit when the Output Service of Call Centre provided by the Assessee was exempted under the Notification, having been exported to foreign country, ignoring the effect of Rule 6 of the CENVAT Rules 2004? ii) What is the interpretation and interplay of Rules 5 and 6 of CENVAT Rules and can a refund under Rule 5 be granted by the Excise Department Authorities even though the Services export....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ssioner [Appeals]]. The said appeal was allowed by order dated 30.06.2010 following an earlier order in so far as it related to the refund of CENVAT credit on exempted output service relating to the period prior to March 2006 for which claim was made by the assessee in November 2006. In respect of the other four claims for refund, the Commissioner [Appeals] remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority to follow the guidelines issued by the Board in Circular No.120/1/2010-ST dated 19.01.2010. The revenue being aggrieved by the order passed by the Commissioner[Appeals] filed an appeal before the Tribunal which was dismissed by the impugned order. 5. Mr.V.Sundareswaran, learned Standing Counsel vehemently contend that under the very sc....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....have elaborately heard Mr. V. Sundareswaran, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant/revenue and Mr. Joseph Prabakar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/assessee. 8. The legal issue which is brought before this Court to be decided which have framed as substantial questions hereinabove has been considered in the earlier decisions rendered by the Hon'ble High Courts. It appears that the earliest of the decision was in the case of Repro India Limited vs. Union of India [2009 (235) ELT 614(Bom)]. This decision was relied on by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise vs. Drish Shoes Ltd. [2010 (254 ELT 417 (HP)]. The substantial questions of law which were framed for c....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e for refund of unutilized CENVAT credit of duty paid in terms of Rule 5 of the CCE. In the said decision, the Court has referred to the decision in the case of Drish Shoes Limited and Repro India Limited. Identical view was taken by the High Court of Rajasthan in the case of Commissioner of CGST, Rajasthan vs. Medicamen Biotech Limited [2019 (368) ELT 324 (Raj.)]. 11. Thus, the legal position as set out in the preceding paragraphs will clearly show that the asessee was entitled for refund. Further, we also find that the Tribunal has rightly interpreted the words used in Rules 5 and 6 by pointing out that the words used in Rule 6 are "exempted goods/services", whereas Rule 5 does not use these words and uses the words "final product/outp....