Goods and Services Tax

Vaibhav Global Ltd. Versus CGST & CE, Jaipur

2018 (12) TMI 341 – CESTAT NEW DELHI – TMI – Refund of cenvat credit taken on the inputs services – inputs services used in the manufacture of the finished goods which were subsequently exported – appellant is denied eligibility to avail cenvat credit on input services due to being exclusively used for exempted goods as per Rule 6(1) of CCR, 2004 and refund is also denied – refund also denied on the ground of non-registration of manufacture and also on the ground of non-distribution of credit – Held that:- Any manufacturer who clears a final product or an intermediary product for export is entitled for credit subject to above conditions. The appellant in the present case admittedly is engaged in clearing excisable goods however the controversy is whether the goods i.e. gems and jewellery were fully exempted or not.

Under Central Excise, “exemption” means exemption by Notification No. under Section 5A of Central Excise Act, 1944 thus goods exported under bonds are not exempted f

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

cope of “exempted goods” – Rule 7(b) of CCR, 2004 to reject the refund is not applicable.

Refund allowed – appeal allowed – decided in favor of appellant. – Service Tax Appeal Nos. ST/52143, 52144 & 52145/2018 [SM] – FINAL ORDER NO. 53352-53354/2018 – Dated:- 4-12-2018 – MRS. RACHNA GUPTA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Present for the Appellant: Mr. Sanjiv Agarwal & Mr. MB Maheshwari, Advocates Present for the Respondent: Mr. P.R. Gupta, DR ORDER PER: RACHNA GUPTA Three of the above mentioned Appeals are disposed of vide this Order as the Commissioner (Appeals) has passed a common Order with respect to three Show Cause Notices in three of these Appeals. Common Order dated 16.02.2018 has been challenged before this Tribunal. 2. Relevant facts for the purpose are: The appellant herein is engaged in manufacturing and export of gems and jewellery. He had filed a refund claim under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2000 and Notification No. 27/2012-CE dated 18.06.2012 in respect of the cenvat c

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

tices are as follows:- Appeal No. SCN Period Refund amount & date Ex-parte OIO No./ Date Common OIA No./ Date ST/52143/2018 C.No. V(71)R-5/Ref/246/2015/5603 dated 10.12.2015 July 2014 to September 2014 Rs.5,14,709/- 30.09.2015 380/Ref./2015 dated 31.12.2015 37 to 39 (NG) ST/JPR/2018 dated 16.02.2018 ST/52144/2018 C.No. V(71)R-5/Ref/261/2015/5601 dated 10.12.2015 October 2014 to December 2014 Rs.4,97,807/- 08/Ref./2016 dated 05.01.2016 37 to 39 (NG) ST/JPR/2018 dated 16.02.2018 ST/52145/2018 C.No. V(71)R-5/Ref/307/2015/5827 dated 21.12.2015 January 2015 to March 2015 Rs.1,11,374/- 09/Ref./2016 dated 11.01.2016 37 to 39 (NG) ST/JPR/2018 dated 16.02.2018 3. I have heard Mr. Himanshu Bansal, Ld. Advocate for the appellant and Mr. P.R. Gupta, Ld. DR for the Department. 4. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that the refund claim was filed of accumulated cenvat on inputs/ input services used for export under Rule 5 of CCR, 2004 read with Notification No. 27 dated 18.06.2012. The D

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

ods of the appellants may be excluded from the scope of exempted goods and may be made eligible to the refund claim under Rule 5 read with Rule 7 of CCr, 2004. 4.2 Ld. Counsel has also mentioned that as per the definition of exempted goods in Rule 2(d) of CCR, 2004 those goods which are under entry no. 67 and 128 of Notification No. 12 dated 17.03.2012 (as has been relied upon by the Commissioner(Appeals) by the Adjudicating Authorities below) but the goods of the appellant fall under none of those categories for this reason also the goods cannot be held as exempted goods and the claim cannot be rejected in accordance thereof. The Order under challenge is therefore prayed to be set aside; Appeal is prayed to be allowed. 5. Ld. DR on the other hand has justified the order and prayed for the dismissal of Appeal. 6. After hearing both the parities my observations and opinion is as follows:- The appellant had filed the refund claim under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and Notification

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

rs a final product or an intermediary product for export is entitled for credit subject to above conditions. The appellant in the present case admittedly is engaged in clearing excisable goods however the controversy is whether the goods i.e. gems and jewellery were fully exempted or not. The appellant has drawn attention to the Ministry of Law advice dated 29.10.1974 as circulated vide CBEC Circular No. 278/112/96-CX dated 11.12.1996 which reads as follows:- Under Central Excise, exemption means exemption by Notification No. under Section 5A of Central Excise Act, 1944 thus goods exported under bonds are not exempted from duty. A conjoint reading of this Circular with the above requirements of Rule 5 makes it clear that a manufacturer who clears a final product or an intermediate product for export without payment of duty under bond or letter of undertaking which is exported without payment of service tax shall not be an exempted goods and as such shall be allowed refund of cenvat cre

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Leave a Reply