Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S Purewal & Associates vs Cce, Chandigarh-I on 21 March, 2017
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SCO 147-148, SECTOR 17-C, CHANDIGARH-160017
SINGLE BENCH
COURT NO.1
Appeal No. E/140/2008 & E/280-282/2008
[Arising out of the Order-in-Appeal NO. 438/CE/CHD/07 dated 28.09.2007, passed by the CCE (Appeals), Chandigarh, Order-in-Appeal NO. 502-504/CE/CHD/04 dated 24.10.2007 passed by the CCE (Appeals), Chandigarh]
Date of Hearing/Decision: 21.03.2017
For Approval & signature:
Honble Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)
M/s Purewal & Associates
M/s P.A.Time Industries-Unit-II
Appellants
Vs.
CCE, Chandigarh-I Respondent
Appearance Shri. Joy Kumar, Advocate- for the appellant Shri. V.K. Tehran, AR- for the respondent CORAM: Honble Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) Final Order No: 60408-60411 / 2017 Per Ashok JIndal:
The appellants are in appeal against the impugned orders wherein the refund claim under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 has been rejected by the Lower Authorities.
2. As the identical issue involved in all the appeals are common order, therefore, all are disposed by a common order.
3. The facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacturing of watch parts and exporting the same under bond. On 05.02.2004, the appellants opted for exemption under Notification No. 50/2003-CE dated 10.06.2003, there was some un-utilised cenvat credit lying in their cenvat credit account for which the appellants filed refund claim. The said refund claims were rejected on the premise that as the appellants are availing exemption under Notification No. 50/2003, therefore, they were not required to export the goods under bond. In that circumstances, the refund claim filed by the appellants under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 are not tenable. Aggrieved from the said order, the appellant is before me.
4. Heard the parties and considered the submissions.
5. The similar issue came up before this Tribunal in the case of Sharp Menthol (India) Ltd. reported in 2015 (328) ELT 543 (Tri. Del.) wherein this Tribunal held that under Rule 6(6) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, the asseessee can avail cenvat credit and can clear the export goods on payment of duty although, they are claiming area based exemption.
6. In that circumstances, I hold that the issue is squarely covered by the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Sharp Menthol (India) Ltd. (Supra) which has been affirmed by the Honble Apex Court reported in 2015 (320) ELT A104(SC), therefore, I do not find any merit in the impugned orders rejecting the refund claim. Accordingly, the refund claim filed by the appellants are allowed under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The appeals are allowed with consequential relief.
(Dictated and Pronounced in the open court) Ashok Jindal Member (Judicial) rt 1 E/140/2008 & E/280-282/2008 M/s Purewal & Associates, M/s P.A. Time Industries Unit-II Vs. CCE, Chandigarh-I