Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S Dileep Industries (P) Ltd vs Cce, Jaipur I on 12 January, 2012
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
West Block No. 2, R.K. Puram, New Delhi 110 066.
Principal Bench, New Delhi
COURT NO. II
DATE OF HEARING : 12/01/12.
Service Tax Appeal No. 699 of 2008
M/s Dileep Industries (P) Ltd. Appellant
Versus
CCE, Jaipur I Respondent
Appearance
Ms. Sukriti Das, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri K.P. Singh, Authorized Representative (SDR) for the Respondent.
CORAM: Honble Shri D.N. Panda, Judicial Member
Honble Shri Rakesh Kumar, Technical Member
Order No. ________________ Dated : _____________
ORDER
Per. D.N. Panda :-
Learned Counsel says reading of show cause notice (appearing at page 39 of the appeal folder) categorically brings charge that unutilised Cenvat credit shall not be refundable. Against this allegation, she submits that exporters are permitted to get refund of Cenvat credit remained unutilised. This is mandate of Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Therefore, the authorities below committed an error denying refund. She relies for her contention on the judgment of CCE vs. Drish Shoes Ltd. reported in 2010 (254) E.L.T. 417 (H.P.).
2. Learned representative for Revenue says that when the goods manufactured were exempted, the Cenvat credit is not admissible to the appellant.
3. Heard both sides and perused the records.
4. It is noticed that Cenvat credit through different modes have been earned by the appellant which is apparent from the show cause notice dated 22/2/08. That fact remained undisputed. Mandate of Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, grants refund of unutilised Cenvat credit. Therefore it is difficult to agree with the authorities below to deny the refund as we are guided by the decision of Honble High Court of Himachal Pradesh in the case of CCE vs. Drish Shoes Ltd. (supra). Consequently, the appellant succeeds and appeal is allowed. (Dictated and pronounced in open court) (D.N. Panda) Judicial Member (Rakesh Kumar) Technical Member PK ??
??
??
??
2 ST/699 of 2008