Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Commissioner of Central Tax Vs Arcelor Mittal Nippon Steel India Ltd. (CESTAT Hyderabad)
Appeal Number : Excise Appeal No. 97 of 2011
Date of Judgement/Order : 23/09/2022
Related Assessment Year :
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

Commissioner of Central Tax Vs Arcelor Mittal Nippon Steel India Ltd. (CESTAT Hyderabad)

ITAT Hyderabad held that Cenvat credit of inputs used in manufacture of goods exported under bond from a Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) to a Special Economic Zone (SEZ) unit is available as refund under rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.

Facts- The refund claim was filed by the appellants u/r. 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Notification No.05/2006-CE(N.T.) dated 14.03.2006 on 04.08.2008 with respect to unutilized/accumulative Cenvat credit balance of Rs.44,65,69,866/-. The said Cenvat credit is attributable to the inputs used in manufacture of goods exported under bond to a SEZ unit during the said quarter.

The department observed that 326139.994 MTs of goods were cleared by the appellants under bond and under letter of undertaking. However, the matter was found to be pending before the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat vide Special Civil Application No.9713 of 2008 on the ground that, “the words export or import or Domestic Tariff Area are defined under the SEZ Act for a specific purpose and the scope thereof would not automatically be extended in other Acts.” The said ground was opined to be contradictory to the claim of refund filed by the appellants u/r 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Accordingly, the aforesaid refund claim was proposed to be rejected vide Show Cause Notice No. 10/38/2008 dated 03.11.2008. The proposal was confirmed vide Order-in-Original No. 127/2009 dated 12.03.2010. The appeal thereof, however, has been allowed vide Order-in-Appeal No. 56/2010 dated 02.09.2010. Being aggrieved of the said order that the department has assailed the same vide the present appeal.

Conclusion- Held that it clear that the transaction of the present case was the case of export which was not subject to the customs duty. However, it was export, hence the refund of Cenvat credit of input used in the manufacture of goods exported was available under Rule 5 of CCR, 2004 to the assessee.

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
July 2024
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031