The matter was argued by Shri Anand Mishra, Advocate In CESTAT, Ahmedabad on 06.01.2015 . The appeal was allowed by way of remand for refund of unutilised cenvat credit on exports by a 100% EOU .
In The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal West Zonal Bench At Ahmedabad
[Arising out of OIA No.51/2009(Ahd-II)/CE/ID/Commr(A)/Ahd/1772, dt.25.02.2009, passed by: Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs (Appeals), Ahmedabad]
M/s Astra Life Care Pvt.Ltd. Appellant
CCE Ahmedabad-II Respondent
For Assessee: Shri Anand Mishra, Adv., Shri Bhavesh T. Patel, C.A.
For Revenue: Shri Alok Srivastava, Dy.Commissioner (AR)
For approval and signature:
Mr. P.K. Das, Honble Member (Judicial)
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the No
Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT
(Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication
in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of Seen
4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Departmental Yes
MR. P.K. DAS, HONBLE MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
Date of Hearing/Decision:06.01.15
Order No. A/10024 / 2015, dt.;06.01.2015
Per: P.K. Das
1. The appellant is a 100% EOU, engaged in the manufacture of Pharmaceutical products. They filed refund claim under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Notification No.5/2006-CE, dt.14.03.06 in respect of unutilized accumulated credit in the CENVAT account used in the manufacture of exported goods during the period April 2004 to March 2006. Both the authorities below denied the refund claim mainly on the ground that there were no exports in the month of March 2006. It is also observed that the refund claim is not in conformity with Para 5 of the said notification.
2. Ld.Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that they have stated before the lower authorities that there was export in the month of March 2006 which was not considered. In support of his contention, he placed the document in respect of export during March 2006 before the Bench.
3. In my considered view, the appellant should be given an opportunity to place these documents before the lower authorities for ascertaining the fact of export of goods during March 2006. Thereafter, it should be decided in the light of the said notification.
4. In view of above discussions, I set aside the impugned order and the matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority to examine the documents in respect of export during March 2006 and thereafter, it would decide the law in the light of said notification. Needless to say that the adjudicating authority shall give proper opportunity of hearing to the appellant before decision. Appeal is allowed by way of remand.
5. At this stage, the ld.Advocate submits that the export relates to 2006 and therefore the adjudicating authority may be directed to decide within a period of 3 months. After considering the submission of the ld.Advocate, adjudicating authority is directed to decide the matter as expeditiously as possible.
(Dictated & Pronounced in Court)