C.C.E.&.S.T., Indore vs M/S. Hindustan Equipment Pvt. Ltd

1. Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? No 2. Whether it would be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? Yes 3. Whether Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the order? Seen 4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Department Authorities? Yes

Application No. E/CROSS/57618/2013-EX[SM]

Appeal No. E/55572/2013-EX[SM]

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.IND/CEX/000/APP/331/12, dated 17.10.2012 passed by the C.C.E.&S.T.(Appeals), Indore]

C.C.E.&.S.T., Indore Appellant

Vs.

M/s. Hindustan Equipment Pvt. Ltd. Respondent

Appearance

Mr. RK Gupta, DR - For Appellant

Mr. Manish Saharan, Advocate - For Respondent

CORAM: Honble Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial)

Final Order No.54193/2015, dated 22.07.2015

Per: S.K. Mohanty :

Revenue is in appeal against the impugned order dated 17.10.2012 passed by C.C.E.&S.T.(Appeals), Indore allowing the appeal of the respondent herein with regard to payment of interest on delayed sanction of refund and allowing refund of CENVAT credit attributable to waste generated in the course of manufacture of exported goods.

2. With regard to the payment of interest for delayed sanction of refund, the Commissioner (Appeals) vide impugned order held that the appellants shall be paid interest at the stipulated rate on amount of refund in question, from the date immediately after expiry of three months from the date of receipt of the application, till the date of refund of such duty. As regards refund of CENVAT credit on inputs related to waste generated during the course of manufacture of exported goods, the Commissioner (Appeals) has held that refund of CENVAT credit shall be allowed in respect of inputs or input services used in relation to the final product which is cleared for export under bond or letter of undertaking. Credit on inputs attributable to the waste generated during such manufacture, cannot be denied for refund as Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 or the Notification issued there- under, do not impose any restriction for the same.

3. I find that the refund application filed by the appellant was considered by the Department after three months from the date of filing the claim application. As per provisions of Section 11BB of Central Excise Act, 1944 the assessee is entitled for interest for the period beyond three months from the date of filing the refund application, till the date of receipt of the refund amount. The issue involved such as, payment of interest on delayed sanction of refund is no more res integra in view of the judgement of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. Vs. Union of India [2011 (273) ELT 3(SC)].

4. Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 permits a manufacturer to claim refund of central excise duty or service tax paid on input or input services, used in the manufacture of final product which is cleared for export under bond or letter of undertaking. In the said Rule, there is no provision to proportionately reduce the refund attributed to waste, generated in the manufacture of exported goods. In the absence of any specific prohibition/restriction in the statute, total quantity of inputs including quantity of inputs contained in waste, for which refund claim was filed, the appellant is entitled for the benefits provided in the statute.

5. In view of the above, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order passed by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) and thus, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. The Cross appeal is disposed of accordingly.

[Operative portion pronounced in the open court]

(S.K. Mohanty)

Member (Judicial)

SSK

??

??

??

??

-4-