Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Solidus Hi Tech Products P Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 20 December, 2016
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SOUTH ZONAL BENCH BANGALORE Appeal(s) Involved: E/21370/2015-SM, E/21371/2015-SM [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 156/2015-CE dated 23/03/2015 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise , BANGALORE-I (Appeal) ] [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 157/2015-CE dated 23/03/2015 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise , BANGALORE-I (Appeal) ] Solidus Hi Tech Products P Ltd No.120, 2nd Phase, Jigani Industrial Area, Anekal Taluk BANGALORE - 562106 KARNATAKA Appellant(s) Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax Bangalore-I POST BOX NO 5400, CR BUILDINGS, BANGALORE 560 001. KARNATAKA Respondent(s)
Appearance:
Mr. K. Krishnamurthy, Consultant For the Appellant Mr. N. Jagadish, AR For the Respondent Date of Hearing: 20/12/2016 Date of Decision: 20/12/2016 CORAM:
HON'BLE SHRI S.S GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER Final Order No. 21433-21434 / 2016 Per : S.S GARG Appellant has filed these two appeals against the impugned order dated 23.3.2015 vide which the Commissioner (A) has rejected the appeals of the appellant and upheld the Order-in-Original.
2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the appellant is a 100% EOU and are engaged in the manufacture of press components falling under Chapter 85 of the CETA, 1985 and are availing CENVAT credit facility under CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The appellants are supplying their final products to another EOU unit. Appellant filed refund of unutilized CENVAT credit under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules (CCR), 2004 for the period from July 2012 to September 2012 for Rs.12,15,660/- and for the period from October 2012 to December 2012 for Rs.11,88,371/-. Thereafter a show-cause notice was issued proposing to deny refund on the ground that clearances of goods from one EOU to another EOU is not export and is only a deemed export. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed appeals before the Commissioner (A) who upheld the Order-in-Original and rejected the appeal of the appellant. Hence the present appeal.
2. Heard both the parties and perused the records.
3. The issue involved in the present appeals is no more res integra and has been settled in favour of the appellant by this Tribunal in the appellants own case vide its order dated 22.1.2014 vide which the Tribunal by relying upon the decision of the Honble High Court of Gujarat in the case of CCE vs. Shilpa Copper Wire Industries: 2011 (269) ELT 17 (Guj.) had rejected the appeal of the Department. It is pertinent to mention that the Honble High Court of Gujarat in the above cited case held that the deemed exports has to be treated at par with physical exports for granting refund of accumulated credit under Notification No.5/2006. Further, the Department filed appeal before the Honble High Court of Karnataka against the decision of the Tribunal dated 22.1.2014 but the same was withdrawn by the Department as per the orders of the High Court dated 12.3.2015. Further, the learned counsel for the appellant relied on the following decisions:
i. In appellants own case vide Final Order No.21353-1/2016 dt. 2.12.2016. ii. Commissioner of Central Excise vs. Shilpa Copper Wire Industries: 2011 (269) ELT 17 (Guj.) iii. Elcomponics Sales Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE: 2012 (279) ELT 280 (Tri.-Del.) as affirmed by the Honble High Court as reported in 2014 (310) ELT A89 (All.) iv. Refron Valves Ltd. vs. CCE: 2012 (181) ELT 447 (Tri.-Ahmd.) v. CCE vs. NBM Industries: 2013 (29) STR 208 (Guj.) vi. CCE vs. Metflow Cast Flow Pvt. Ltd.: 2016 (331) ELT 355 (Guj.) vii. CCE vs. Anita Synthetics Pvt. Ltd.: 2014 (306) ELT (Guj.) Therefore, in view of the above decisions, the appeals are allowed by setting aside the impugned order. (Operative portion of the Order was pronounced in Open Court on 20/12/2016.) S.S GARG JUDICIAL MEMBER rv 4