Cce vs Shilpa Copper Wire Industries on 6 February, 2008
5.?I have carefully considered the submissions from both the sides and perused the records. First and the main point of dispute in this case is as to whether the provisions of Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 are applicable in respect of supplies by a manufacturer without payment of duty to 100% EOU. On this point, I find that there are a series of judgments of Honble Gujarat High Court and of the Tribunal, which are in favour of the appellant - (a) Honble Gujarat High Courts judgment in the case of C.C.E. v. Shilpa Copper Wire Industries reported in 2011 (269) E.L.T. 17 (Gujarat) and also 2010 (258) E.L.T. A20 and the Tribunals judgments in the cases of Western Cans P. Ltd. reported in 2011 (270) E.L.T. 101 (Tribunal-Mumbai) and NBM Industries v. C.C.E. reported in 2009 (246) E.L.T. 252 (Tribunal-Ahmd.). In all these judgments, it has been held that when the finished goods manufactured out of cenvat credit availed inputs have been supplied to 100% EOUs, refund of accumulated cenvat credit under Rule 5 cannot be denied on the ground that the supplies to 100% EOU are deemed export and not real exports, as Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules also provides for the refund of cenvat credit on the goods which are cleared as intermediate products for manufacture of final products for export and supplies to 100% EOU have to be treated as clearances for export.