https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=427791 The Tribunal allowed the appeal by remanding the matter back for further examination to ensure compliance with Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 before rejecting the refund claim. The appellant was not entitled to claim the Cenvat credit due to the goods being subject to nil rate of duty, making the requirement of bond or letter of undertaking unnecessary for exports. The rejection based on the alleged violation of Rule 9(2) of Central Excise Rules was deemed unjustified as the necessary particulars were provided. The applicability of Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules was clarified regarding the allowance of credit for manufacturers of final products. en-us Thu, 15 Sep 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 16 Sep 2022 10:41:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=427791 The Tribunal allowed the appeal by remanding the matter back for further examination to ensure compliance with Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 before rejecting the refund claim. The appellant was not entitled to claim the Cenvat credit due to the goods being subject to nil rate of duty, making the requirement of bond or letter of undertaking unnecessary for exports. The rejection based on the alleged violation of Rule 9(2) of Central Excise Rules was deemed unjustified as the necessary particulars were provided. The applicability of Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules was clarified regarding the allowance of credit for manufacturers of final products. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 15 Sep 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=427791