Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Ranchi vs Jindal Steel & Power Ltd on 20 March, 2025
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
EASTERN ZONAL BENCH : KOLKATA
REGIONAL BENCH - COURT NO. 1
Excise Appeal No. 76337 of 2016
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.01/RAN/2016-17 dated 05.05.2016 passed by
Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Ranchi)
Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, : Appellant
Ranchi
6th Floor, Mahavir Tower, Main Road, Ranchi-834001.
VERSUS
M/s. Jindal Steel and Power Limited, : Respondent
P.O.-Balkudra, Patratu, Dist.-Ramgarh-829143 (Jharkhand) APPEARANCE:
Shri S.Dey, Authorized Representative for the Appellant Mr. Deepro Sen & Ms. Udita Saraf, Advocates for the Respondent CORAM:
HON'BLE SHRI ASHOK JINDAL, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) HON'BLE SHRI K. ANPAZHAKAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) FINAL ORDER NO.75879/ 2025 DATE OF HEARING :20.03.2025 DATE OF DECISION:20.03.2025 Order : [Per Shri Ashok Jindal] Revenue is in appeal against the impugned order.
2. The facts of the case are that the Respondent is engaged in manufacture of wire rod, rib bar etc and these are cleared in domestic market as well as exported by the Respondent without payment of tax and under Letter of Undertaking ('LUT').
3. During the period April, 2014 to June 2014, the Respondent had exported their goods without payment of duty under LUT, which led to accumulation of CENVAT Credit of duty/service tax paid on various inputs and input services. Accordingly, the Respondent filed a refund claim 2 Appeal No.: E/76337/2016-DB under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules electronically on 18.03.2015, seeking cash refund of unutilized credit of inputs and inputs service . Further, the Respondent also filed such refund application manually on 18.05.2015.
4. Pursuant to the above refund application, certain discrepancies were noted and a Show Cause Notice was issued dated 20.07.2015, proposing rejection of Refund claim.
5. The Refund claimed was rejected. Respondent filed appeal before the Ld. Commissioner (Appeal). The Ld. Commissioner (Appeal) allowed the refund claim holding that the refund claimed filed by the Respondent is not barred by limitation under Section 11B of Central Excise Act as much as provisions of Section 11B of Central Excise Act are not applicable to refund claim filed under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
6. It was also observed that the Respondent is availing drawback of only customs duty and not on the Cenvat portion of the input /input services used for manufacturing the export goods. Hence, the question of availing double benefit by the Respondent does not arise.
7. The Revenue has challenged the said order on the ground that the limitation under Section 11B will also apply to refunds under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and the product exported under ARE-1 No. 93/14-15 were exported after 30th June, 2014 and hence the same cannot be covered under refund claim for the period April, 2014 to June, 2014.
3Appeal No.: E/76337/2016-DB
8. On the other hand Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent supported the impugned order.
9. Heard the parties. Considering that in Respondent's own case issue has been decided by this Tribunal observing as under:
"6. We find that Commr. (Appeal) has decided the issue on the basis of ratio laid down in the case of Deepak Spinner Ltd. Vs. CCE (supra), which relied upon the following the ratio of Hon'ble High Court of M.P. in the case of STI India Vs. CCE (supra). Also the Hon'ble CESTAT has held that similar view was held in the case of Global Food Industries Vs. CCE (supra). It is held in these judgements that the time limit as prescribed under Section 11B is not applicable in the case of refund of unutilized Cenvat Credit under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Thus the time limit as prescribed in Section 11B of Central Excise Act shall not be applicable in the case at hand, we are in agreement with the Commr. Appeal on the finding regarding non adjustment of the duty demand, which havenot attained finality against the order of the refund as held in the case of :
(i) Commr. Of Central Excise, Bangalore-III Vs. Steela Rubber Works (Unit-III) (2012(275) ELT 404 (Kar.)
(ii) KEC International Ltd. Vs. Commr. Of Central Excise and Service Tax, Bhopal [2014 (310) ELT 615 (Tri-Del)
(iii) BSNL Vs. CCE [2014(36) (STR-Delhi)
7. As far as availing of Draw Back by the appellant is concerned, there is no bar in availing the drawback pertaining to the portion of the Customs or 4 Appeal No.: E/76337/2016-DB Excise duty, on which the said facility has not been availed. The Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, wherein it is stated that no refund shall be available if the benefit under Customs and Central Excise duties and Service Tax Draw Back Rules, 1995 is availed. It is only to prevent claimant to avail double benefit in respect of the duties on input and input services which are used in the manufacture of export goods. The said Rule does not debar an assessee to claim drawback of Customs duty as per Drawback Rule even if the benefit of Cenvat Credit is availed or vice versa. If the rate indicated is the same, for AIR with Cenvat facility and without Cenvat facility, it shall mean the rate in AIR pertains to Customs portion only. In such a situation, the question of taking double benefit does not arise. In this regard the CBEC Circular No. 83/2000/CUS dated 16/10/2000 is referred to which supports the above view that there is no double benefit available to the manufacturer where only Customs portion of industry rate of Drawback is claimed by allowing the benefit of Cenvat Credit refund. It is apparent from the record that there was a hug accumulation of Cenvat Credit at the time of filing of refund under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rule even after adjustment. Other minor issues regarding valuation of Weigh and Calculation of Cenvat Credit for refund has duly been rectified subject to appropriate verification and subsequent adjustment by the Adjudicating Authority.
8. After going through the case records, we find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has decided the issue relying on the decision in case of Deepak Spiner Ltd. Vs. CCE (Supra) which is again based on 5 Appeal No.: E/76337/2016-DB the Hon'ble High Court of MPs order in case of STI India vs CCE referred above.
9. Accordingly, the Revenue appeal is dismissed holding the impugned order correct and legal. Stay Petition rejected."
10. As issue has already been decided that the refund claimed filed under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, the provision of Section 11B of Central Excise Act not applicable for time limit. In that circumstances, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order.
11. With regard to the allegation that goods exported under ARE-1 No. 93/14-15 to 100/14-15 were exported up to 30th June, 2014. Infact, the said goods have been cleared from the factory of the Respondent before 30th June, 2014 but the shipment was done after 30th June, this does not mean that the appellant has not exported the goods and the same has been cleared before 30th June, 2014.
Therefore, Ld. Commissioner (Appeal) has rightly sanctioned the refund claimed to the Respondent.
12. In that circumstances, we do not any infirmity in the impugned order. The same is upheld and appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.
(Operative part of the order was pronounced in open court) (ASHOK JINDAL) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) (K. ANPAZHAKAN) MEMBER (TECHNICAL) RG