Bright Engineering Works Erstwhile 100 Eou Vs C.C.E. & S.T. (CESTAT Ahmedabad )
The CESTAT, Ahmedabad in the case of M/s. Bright Engineering Works v. CCE & ST Daman and Surat [Excise Appeal No. 10493 of 2014 and Excise Appeal No. 12764 of 2019, dated December 15, 2022], set aside the order passed by the Revenue Department rejecting the refund application of the assessee. Held that, the refund cannot be denied on the ground of double benefit to the Appellant due to non-transfer of unutilized CENVAT credit. Further, interest was allowed under Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (“the CE Act”) for delay of refund.
Facts:
M/s. Bright Engineering Works (“the Appellant”) was registered as Export Oriented Unit (“EOU”). The Appellant had accumulated CENVAT credit on account of export for which the Appellant filed 18 refunds applications totally amounting to Rs. 43,35,610/- for the period of July 2006 to December 2009 under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 (“the CCR”) read with Notification No. 5/2006-CE (NT) dated March 14, 2006 (“the Refund Notification”).
Subsequently, the Appellant filed an application for transferring EOU to register as DTA under CE Act, 1944. On July 25, 2013, the Assistant Commissioner vide Order-in-Original (“OIO”) sanctioned the refund of unutilized CENVAT credit of Rs. 43,35,610/- of the Appellant.
The Revenue Department filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeal) (“the CIT(A)”) against the OIO alleging that the Appellant took double benefit by availing refund of the accumulated Cenvat credit and by not reversing the Cenvat credit as per Notification 27/2012 CE (NT) dated June 18, 2012 (“NN. 27”).
On the other hand, the Appellant also filed an appeal before the CIT(A) seeking interest on the sanctioned refund, being sanctioned after prescribed period.
The CIT(A) vide Order in Appeal dated December 30, 2013 (“OIA”) allowed the appeal of the revenue and rejected the appeal of the Appellant. Subsequently, the Appellant was issued a Protective Show Cause Notice (“SCN”) on the basis of OIA. The SCN was adjudicated vide Order-in-Original dated October 28, 2015 (“Second OIO”).
Consequently, the Appellant filed an appeal before the CIT(A). However, the CIT(A) upheld the Second OIO vide Order-in-Appeal dated December 19, 2018 (“the Impugned Order”).
Being aggrieved, this appeal has been filed by the Appellant.
Issue:
Whether the Appellant is eligible to claim refund as per Refund Notification along with the interest?
Held:
The CESTAT, Ahmedabad in Excise Appeal No. 10493 of 2014 and Excise Appeal No. 12764 of 2019 held as under:
