TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (2) TMI 368
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eme vide Notification No. 97/2004-Cus dated 17.9.2004. They were not able to fulfill the export obligation under the said Notification. Therefore, they paid import duty including CVD and SAD on the said imports and claimed refund of the CVD and SAD refund of CENVAT Credit of Rs. 2,78,703/- vide letter dated 23.8.21 and Rs. 6,80,807/- vide letter dated 23.8.21 as they could not be taken as credit in the GST regime. The refund sanctioning authority rejected the refund claim on the ground that the import conditions were not fulfilled. Aggrieved against the said order, the appellants preferred appeals before Commissioner (Appeals) who vide the impugned orders upheld the order passed by the refund sanctioning authority and rejected the refund on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h states, that refund of credit of duty paid is eligible on excisable goods used as inputs in accordance with the rules made, or any notification issued, under this Act. It was his opinion that only duty paid on excisable goods which are inputs alone are eligible and duty paid on capital goods cannot be refunded. However, LAA has not disputed about the eligibility to CENVAT credit under the existing law viz., CCR,2004. LAA failed to consider that CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 itself was issued under notification 23/2004 CE (NT) dated 10-09-2004 as amended wherein as per Rule 3(1) (vii) and (vii a) duties paid on goods imported is allowed to be availed and utilized as CENVAT Credit. This apart, no factual allegation/evidence has been laid agains....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ons of the rival parties. I find that this is a case where the Appellant imported capital goods under the EPCG scheme and were unable to fulfill the export obligation under the said Notification. Therefore, they paid import duty including CVD and SAD on the said imports and claimed refund of the same taken as CENVAT Credit in their books under Section 142 (3) of the C.G.S.T. Act, 2017, as they could not be taken as credit in the GST regime. 5. The reason given for rejecting the appeal given at para 8 & 9 of the impugned order is very cryptic. The same is reproduced below. "8. It is evidently clear that as per the above provisions only duty paid on excisable goods which are inputs alone are eligible and duty paid on capital goods cannot b....