Supreme Court has posted the case for hearing on 29, February 2024 E I Dupont’s CENVAT Credit Claims Case related to deemed exports.
The assessee, M/s. EI Dupont India Pvt. Ltd. had resubmitted the refund claims in respect of CENVAT credit on inputs used in the manufacture of their product which were cleared under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The adjudicating authority served a showcause notice upon the claimant and the claimant was directed to show cause why the refund claim should not be rejected under the Rules.
Assessee had contended before the High Court that adjudicating authority has materially erred in rejecting the refund claims of the petitioner. Assessee had further contended that the adjudicating authority has misinterpreted and/or misapplied the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mafatlal Industries Ltd. vs. Union of India reported and observed that as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mafatlal Industries Ltd., “the assessee must succeed or fail in his own proceedings and the finality of the proceedings in his own case cannot be ignored and refund order in favour of just because in another assessee’s case similar point is decided in favour of the manufacturer/assessee”.
Assessee had further contended that as such no such law has been laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mafatlal Industries Ltd. That as such by not following the binding decision of this Court, revenue is liable for action under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act.
Revenue had contended before the High Court that the adjudicating authority was of the opinion that since the claimant has not physically exported the goods but merely supplied the goods to 100% EOU, the provision of Rule 5 of the Rules are not applicable and therefore, there are not entitled for refund of CENVAT credit under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules and therefore, the claims were liable to be rejected under Rule 5 of the Rules. Revenue further contended that the petitioners have alternative remedy available to prefer appeal against the impugned order passed by the revenue.
The High Court had accepted the refund claims of the assessee and ordered adjudicating authorities to sanction the refund claims of the assessee. The court had also ordered CENVAT credit amount payment to the assessee. The court had also granted consequential reliefs which may be available to the petitioners under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules.
The bench comprising Abhay S. Okha and Ujjal Bhuyan has SC listed the case for hearing on February 29, 2024.
Assessee was represented by Vanita Bhargava, Ajay Bhargava, Nandita Chauhan, Khaitan & Co., Sujit Ghosh, Mannnat Waraich, Ajinkya Tiwari and Vikas Upadhyay. Revenue was represented by Mukesh Kumar Maroria,.V Balaji and Nisha Bagchi.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
