The Mumbai bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) rejected the order by the Adjudicating Authority which denied the Cenvat Credit available to Pidilite Industries Ltd (The Appellant) and upheld the order by the Commissioner of Central Excise (CCE) (The Respondent) on the ground of inability to use domestic layouts.
The appellant manufactured and exported excisable goods and had availed cenvat credit on inputs and input services and sought refund under rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, which the original authority rejected, and their appeal was disposed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals-II), upholding the rejection.
The counsel who appeared on behalf of the appellants submitted that their claim was in accord with the prescription in notification no. 5/2006-CE (NT), issued for the empowerment of notifying safeguards, conditions, and limitations, and that it was not open to the sanctioning authority to impose restrictions not specified.
The counsel further submitted that the lower authorities had erroneously relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore v. GTN Engineering (I) Ltd [2012] he further relied on the decision by the tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Surat-I v. Swagat Synthetics [2008].
The counsel who appeared on behalf of the revenue submitted that it was clear from the decision of the Tribunal in Rangdhara Polymers v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad- II [2022], that the ‘relevant date’ under section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 would have to be complied with in all cases of refund. The counsel also relied on the decision of the High Court of Madras in re GTN Engineering (I) Ltd.
The two-member bench consisting of Ajay Sharma (Judicial Member) and C.J. Mathew (Technical Member) after hearing both sides held that “It is necessary for the application for refund to be restored to the original authority for determination of the amount of refund eligible in accordance with the said notification. To enable that, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the original authority for fresh decision” and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
