Order Date – 15 December 2022

Facts –

• The Appellant, Bright Engineering Works Erstwhile is EOU unit and filed 18 refund claims under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Notification No. 5/2006-CE (NT) for un-utilized Cenvat Credit of Input Services used in or in relation to the manufacture of export goods.
• After debonding, appellant did not carry forward the accumulated Cenvat Credit but showed the same as Cenvat Credit Refund Receivable in its financial accounts and balance sheet.
• Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner vide Order-In-Original dated 25.07.2013 sanctioned refund of unutilized cenvat credit of Rs. 43,35,610/- to the Appellant. Being aggrieved, appeal was filed by the revenue against the said order alleging that Appellant have taken double benefit in as much as they have taken refund of Rs. 45,35,610/- and they did not debit/reverse the said amount from Cenvat account.

Issues –

• Whether the appellant is entitled to refund claim or not?

Order –

• The Tribunal finds that originally when the appellant filed the refund claim under Notification No. 5/2006, the same was allowed by the refund sanctioning authority.
• Tribunal noted that in the impugned orders the Commissioner has wrongly considered the claim under Notification No. 27/2012 instead of Notification No. 5/2006. The reliance made upon the provisions of Notification dated 18.06.2012 is absurd and illegal since the refund claim was admittedly filed in the present matter under the provisions of Notification dated 14.03.2006.
• It is pertinent to note that under Notification No. 5/2006, the requirement for debiting the refund claim amount did not exist.
• In the Tribunal’s view, the non-transfer of unutilized cenvat credit is as good as reversal of cenvat. The charge of the double benefit will sustain only when the assessee in one hand claim the refund and in other hand utilise the same amount for payment of duty on their clearance of 
• goods, which is not the case. 
• Further, the appellant is entitled for the interest as per the Apex Court decision in Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd.
• The Appeal is allowed.