TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (3) TMI 124
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... pr Rule 6(1) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 they are not entitled to take input credit. Consequently, they are not entitled to file refund claim under Notification 5/2006. Another reason for deny of refund claim is that as the goods were not exported under bond, therefore provisions of Rule 6(6)(v) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 are not applicable to the facts of this case. 2. The ld. consultant appeared on behalf of the appellant submits that it is not in dispute that they have paid duty on the inputs/input service which were gone in the manufacturing of export goods which were exempted product. It is further submitted that as goods were exempted, there is no question of execution of bond as there is no duty involved. He further submit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ibility of the inputs/input service proposed to be deny in the show-cause notice therefore they are entitled for the same. He further submits that as per amendment in Notification 42/01 by virtue of Notification 24/10 dated 06.05.2010 the appellant are not entitled to take credit itself. There is a separate procedure under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2004 to claim refund/rebate of the inputs when manufacturing of exempted goods. 4. Heard both sides. 5. In this case the appellant has procured inputs/input service on payment of duty which were gone in the manufacturing of exempted goods which were exported by the appellant. These facts are not in dispute. The intent of the legislation is not in dispute that the taxes are not to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., as is clear from a combined reading of rule 3 and sub rule (1) of Rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002, as also the 2004, so as to avoid indirect double taxation on inputs. However, this rule is not absolute. It is subject to exception clause, contained in Rule 6(5) of the 2002 and 6(6) of the Rules of 2004, and one of the 'exceptions is in respect of excisable goods, which are cleared for export under bond in terms of the provisions of Central Excise Rules, 2002. 17. Sub rule (5) of Rule 6 of the Rules of 2002 was applicable only in case of exempted goods. That meant that the exception was not applicable in case of dutiable goods. It appears that this led to anomalous situations. For example, if the goods wer....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....NVAT Credit Rules, 2004 that a manufacturer, who exports the final products which are exempt from duty, can claim refund of CENVAT. So, this question is also answered against the appellant." 7. The issue came up before the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in Repro India Ltd. (supra) wherein the Hon'ble High Court held that CENVAT credit used in the manufacture of final product being exported irrespective of the fact that final product are otherwise exempted by provisions of Rule 6(6)(v) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 are applicable. Further, I find that in the case of Salzer Controls Ltd. 2003 (160) ELT 1169 and Paras Ship Breakers Ltd. this Tribunal has held that non-execution of bonds are only technical lapse. Further, in the cas....