Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.15 seconds)
M/S Themis Medicare Limited vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 9 December, 2016 cites

Employer In Relation To The Management ... vs The Union Of India Through The Ministry ... on 10 February, 2015

3. The Ld Advocate for the appellant submits that the Ld commissioner (Appeals) has erred in observing that since the exported goods was exempted, therefore, they would not be eligible to refund of Cenvat Credit availed on inputs used in or in relation to manufacture of the said finished product. It is his contention that the principle in this regard is no more res integra being settled by the Honble Bombay High Court in the case of M/s Repro India Ltd Vs UOI  2009(235)ELT.614 (Bom), and Honble Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of CCE vs Drish Shoes Ltd  2010(254)ELT.417 (HP) which has been followed by this Tribunal in the case of CCE, Ahmedabad vs Gujarat Ambuja Exports Ltd  2014(311)ELT.718 (Tri.Ahmd). Further, he submits that the Dept. has verified all the documents against their claim and it is incorrect to say that eligibility of cash refund was not supported by evidences.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 38 - S Chandrashekhar - Full Document

C.C.E. & S.T., Panchkula vs Liberty Shoes Ltd on 28 October, 2015

3. The Ld Advocate for the appellant submits that the Ld commissioner (Appeals) has erred in observing that since the exported goods was exempted, therefore, they would not be eligible to refund of Cenvat Credit availed on inputs used in or in relation to manufacture of the said finished product. It is his contention that the principle in this regard is no more res integra being settled by the Honble Bombay High Court in the case of M/s Repro India Ltd Vs UOI  2009(235)ELT.614 (Bom), and Honble Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of CCE vs Drish Shoes Ltd  2010(254)ELT.417 (HP) which has been followed by this Tribunal in the case of CCE, Ahmedabad vs Gujarat Ambuja Exports Ltd  2014(311)ELT.718 (Tri.Ahmd). Further, he submits that the Dept. has verified all the documents against their claim and it is incorrect to say that eligibility of cash refund was not supported by evidences.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 0 - Cited by 12 - Full Document

Cce,Ahmedabad vs M/S Gujarat Ambuja Exports Ltd on 8 August, 2016

6. I find that the appellant had claimed cash refund of Rs. 31,32,637/- during the period April 2007 to March 2008 under Rule 5 of CCR, 2004. As pointed out by the Ld. advocate, the refund claim was rejected on the ground that the goods exported by them being exempted, hence not eligible to refund; secondly, they failed to place supporting evidences to establish about the use of the inputs in the manufacture of finished goods which were exported and compliance of the conditions laid down under the relevant Notification. I find that the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) while considering the issues recorded his observation on the first aspect only and concluded that they are not eligible to the cash refund of the CENVAT Credit as the exported was exempted from duty. However, he did not consider the eligibility of cash refund on merit on scrutiny of evidence. I find that the principles of eligibility of cash refund, when the goods are exempted from duty has been settled by the aforesaid cases viz., M/s Repro India Ltd, M/s Drish Shoes Ltd and M/s Gujarat Ambuja Exports Ltd (supra), hence, on this count the impugned Order is bad in law and not sustainable. However, for the purpose of analyzing the evidences, to ascertain the eligibility of cash refund of the credit on merit, I am of the view that the matter needs to remanded to the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) for the limited purpose of scrutinizing the evidences.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 4 - A K Sikri - Full Document
1