2026-VIL-363-CESTAT-HYD-CE
  1. Home
  2. 2026-VIL-363-CESTAT-HYD-CE

CENTRAL EXCISE CESTAT Cases

Central Excise – Scope of expression 'export' in Rule 5 of CCR, 2004 - Refund of unutilized Cenvat credit on deemed exports vs. physical exports – Claim of refund of unutilized Cenvat credit under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 on account of both physical exports as well as deemed exports (clearances from the appellant's unit to other 100% EOUs) - Refund Sanctioning Authority allowed refund only to the extent of Cenvat credit availed in relation to physical exports and not for the deemed exports - Whether refund under Rule 5 of CCR, 2004 can be granted for deemed exports, in addition to physical exports – HELD - The expression 'export' used in Rule 5 of CCR and the related Notification No.27/2012 has a definite connotation and can only be interpreted to mean physical exports i.e., taking goods out of India. The Rule 5 covers only physical exports and not deemed exports. When the plain reading of the provisions indicates that only physical exports are covered, the deemed exports cannot be considered eligible for refund under Rule 5 - the order of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in Shilpa Copper Wire Industries Ltd case, whereby, deemed export was considered as eligible as physical export for the purpose of refund under Rule 5, the ratio of this order may not be applicable in the present matter in view of amendment vide Notification No.06/2015 dt.01.03.2015 inserting explanation 1(1A) restricting the scope of Rules and notification to physical export alone. Since the explanation being clarificatory in nature, it will have retrospective effect - The denial of refund on deemed exports under Rule 5 of CCR is upheld and the appeal is dismissed - Whether the amendment made by insertion of Explanation 1(1A) to Rule 5 through Notification No.06/2015 has retrospective effect – HELD - The amendment made by inserting Explanation 1(1A) to Rule 5 is clarificatory in nature, as it merely clarifies the meaning of 'export goods' referred to in Rule 5, which was already implicit. The Tribunal relied on the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Inter Globe Aviation Ltd vs. CC, New Delhi, that a clarificatory provision does not enlarge or put anyone at a disadvantage, but only clarifies the existing position. Therefore, the Explanation 1(1A) has retrospective effect.
Download File
show more Judgements  

Quick Search

/

Advance Search

GST Resources

/

Gst Rate Finder

Tax Vista

Your Weekly Tax Recap

By Kasi Viswanathan V

Weekly Summary

VIL Video

Analysis of Union Budget 2026-27:
By CA Vivek Jalan

Create Account

Security-Code
New Code?

Log In

New User ? Forgot Password ?

Forgot Password

Security-Code
New Code?
Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page

Feedback this page

Schedule a Demo

Schedule a demo to know the features and advantages of VILGST portal. Get to know the tips to find the desired results in faster way.

Caselaw Request Form (CRF)

Didn’t find what you are searching for? No worries, please give us the following details and VIL will email you the desired Caselaws at the earliest:

Security-Code
New Code?