In support of views of Sh.Ranganathan, Sir, I further express as under :-
If Central Excise duty has been paid on inputs used in the manufacture of exempted finished goods exported, Refund of duty paid those inputs is admissible under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules. Finished goods may be exempted by virtue of notification or tariff rate Nil. So question of reversal does not arise. Go through the following case laws. These judgements are relevant now.
(1) Cenvat credit - Refund of unutilized credit, whether admissible on export of fully exempted goods? (2) Words and Phrases - Term ‘excisable goods’ used in Rule 6(6) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, whether includes both dutiable and exempted goods when exported under Bond?
The Supreme Court Bench comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.K. Jain and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anil R. Dave on 12-3-2012 after condoning the delay granted leave in the Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 9885 of 2011 filed by Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh against the Judgment and Order dated 5-5-2010 of Himachal Pradesh High Court in C.E.A. No. 2 of 2009 as reported in 2010 (254) E.L.T. 417 (H.P.) = 2010 (5) TMI 334 - HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT (Commissioner v. Drish Shoes Ltd.). While granting leave, the Supreme Court passed the following order :
“Delay condoned.
Leave granted.
The appeal will be heard on the SLP Paper Book. Additional documents, if any, may be filed by the parties.”
The Himachal Pradesh High Court in its impugned order had held that refund of accumulated Cenvat credit under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 was available when fully exempted goods are exported. Further bar under Rule 6 ibid is not applicable as such units are fully covered in exception clause contained in Rule 6(5) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 and Rule 6(6) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, there being real distinction between two Rules. While Rule 6(5) of Rules of 2002 mentioned ‘exempted goods’, Rule 6(6) of 2004 Rules mentions ‘excisable goods’ which includes exempted goods as well.
[Commissioner v. Drish Shoes Ltd. - 2015 (322) E.L.T. A112 (S.C.)= 2012 (3) TMI 457 - SUPREME COURT]