Welspring Universal Vs Commissioner of Central Tax (CESTAT Delhi)
CESTAT Delhi held that substantive benefit of the appellant cannot be taken away merely because the refund claim is filed under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 instead of Rules 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
Facts- The appellant, an EOU, is engaged in manufacture of welding machine tools/accessories. As an EOU, it was also registered as a private bonded warehouse u/s. 58 and 65 of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant exported goods under claim of rebate. The rebate claim was allowed by the Jurisdictional Officers and thereafter it was felt that the rebate was erroneously sanctioned. At the insistence of the department, the appellant deposited the entire amount of rebate sanctioned to it along with interest. The appellant informed the department that it intended to take credit of duty of Rs. 76,72,000/- against the goods exported. This amount also included the amount of Rs. 7,88,553/- which had earlier been sanctioned as rebate to the appellant and which was repaid by the appellant.
The Assistant Commissioner intimated the appellant that it cannot be allowed to take the aforesaid credit of Rs. 76,72,000/-. However, the appellant took the credit, which was reflected in its returns.
