2008 (7) TMI 129

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d on job work basis. The appellant is a manufacturer-exporter. During February 2005, the appellants claimed refund of Rs. 4,12,400/-being the unutilized CENVAT credit accumulated on account of exports by them. The original authority rejected the refund claim on the ground that the appellants had exported bought out material without subjecting them to any manufacturing process. Therefore, the CENVAT credit accrued on account of export under bond of such fabrics was not admissible. As no manufacture was involved, the appellants had exported materials procured as such. As there was no manufacture, the goods received were not inputs and the assessee was not eligible for refund of the credit so accumulated under Rule 5 of the CCR, 2002. The Comm....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e to the assessee as refund in terms of Rule 5 of the CCR, 2002. Ld. Counsel relies on the decision of this Tribunal in Bala Handloom Exports Co. Ltd. v. CCE [2008 (223) E.L.T. 100 (Trib.-Chen.)] in support of his plea that the assessee was eligible for the refund denied to them. 5. Ld. SDR reiterates the findings of the Commissioner. 6. I have carefully considered the case records and submissions made by both sides. The appellant is a manufacturer-exporter and exports fabrics manufactured using the input cotton yarn. They work under the CENVAT scheme and avail credit of duty paid on yarn and fabrics. The appellant's claim is that they had also exported bought out fabrics after subjecting them to various processes including export fin....