TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (8) TMI 701
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he said goods were exempted from AED (TTA) w.e.f. 09.07.2004. On the date of exemption, the respondent had a balance of AED (T & TA) of Rs. 27,25,433/-. 2.1 In March, 2005, the respondent debited Rs. 2,31,85,989/- from their Cenvat Credit Account with remark -- "Cenvat Credit reversed by us vide notification No.41/2001 dated 26.06.2001", and filed three rebate claims of the above said amount which included AED (T&TA) of Rs. 22,54,910/-, under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules. However, these claims were rejected on grounds that the respondent has already availed rebate of duty paid on final products and simultaneous availment of rebate of duty paid on inputs and on finished goods cannot be availed. The issue went through litigation and finally Govt. Of India vide order dated 7.5.2007, rejected the appeal of the respondent. The respondent filed a Writ Petition DBCWP No.1629/2008 before the Hon'ble High Court, which was dismissed as withdrawn. As the rebate was not allowed, they took re-credit of the above amount. Ex post facto permission was granted by the Asstt. Commissioner, Division Sikar, to the said availment of credit and the same was regularised on 12.05.2011. This re-credit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ils submitted by the claimant, the claimant had exported 1,88,475.80 kg. finished goods after 08.07.2004, which were lying in their finished goods stock as on 08.07.2004 and which were manufactured out of those inputs on which duty of AED (T& TA) was paid by the claimant. The claimant had used input materials 1,93,188 kgs. involving AED Rs. 3,82,512/- for manufacturing of 1,88,475.80 kgs. exported finished goods. 3. Ld. Commissioner, in the appeal of the Revenue recorded the following findings referring to the remand order of this Tribunal being Final Order dated 2.6.2016, wherein it has been observed :- "Considering the above discussion and analysis, I find that the appellant is in principle eligible for refund of AED(T&TA) under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. However, considering the facts of the case and the applicability of time limit for such claim, as discussed above, the claim shall be restricted to the AED(T&TA) re-entered in the cenvat credit account by the appellant in November, 2010 and falling under the eligibility under Rule 5. As such the matter has to go back to the Original Authority to examine the eligible amount of refund in terms of above fi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2016 to the department and based on their verification, has computed the following:- (i) the quantum of finished goods in stock as on 8.7.2014 which were manufactured out of inputs on which AED was paid to the extent of Rs. 3,82,512/- (ii) the quantum of inputs and the AED (T&TA) involved therein amounting to Rs. 4,69,009/- as on 8.7.2014 which were used in manufacture of finished goods exported after the said date (iii) the inputs which were in process on the said date and the finished goods manufactured out of it and the quantum involved in goods exported out of said quantity manufactured amounting to Rs. 4,79,926/- (iv) the inputs receivged after 8.7.2014 on which AED ws paid and which were used in manufacture of goods exported amounting to Rs. 39,693/- and I find from the above that the respondent had used input material involving AED of Rs. 13,70,148/- only(Rs. 3,82,512/- + Rs. 4,69,009/- + Rs. 4,79,926/-) for export of finished after 08.07.2004 and that as per Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, out of total refund claim of Rs. 22,54,910/-, they were entitled only to the extent of Rs. 13,70,148/- and the refund of Rs. 8,84,762/- [Rs. 2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat there is no restrictions on the amount of refund of cenvat credit, which has remained un-utilised. Neither Rule 5 of CCR nor the aforesaid circulars provides for proportionate calculation of refundable amount, being proportionate export turnover to the total turnover. Hence, in the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in reducing the refund amount, on proportionate basis, by colourable exercise of powers and passed order ignoring the directions and clarifications issued by the Board. The balance amount of refund of Rs. 8,88,762/- remains un-utilised due to withdrawal of duty of AED (T&TA) w.e.f 9.7.2004. Hence, it was rightly held in the order-in-original that the appellant is entitled to refund of entire amount of Rs. 22,54,910/-, which has been erroneously reduced by the Commissioner to Rs. 13,70,148/-. The availability of the untilised credit in the books of the appellant is undisputed and admitted. Further, Rule 5 of CCR does not debar the refund of unutilised credit of AED (T&TA) availed on inputs, utilised in the manufacture of final products cleared in domestic market. 8. It is further urged that there is no requirement of 1 to 1 correlation between th....