TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (11) TMI 218
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....me. Therefore, I am taking up both the matters together for issuing a common order. 3. Shri B.N. Gururaj, the learned Advocate, appeared on behalf of the appellants and Smt. Sudha Koka, the learned SDR, for the Revenue. 4. I heard both sides. 5. The appellants are 100% EOU. They received dutiable inputs from certain dealers for the manufacture of the finished products which are to be exported. They availed Cenvat credit on the duty paid inputs. Since they were not in a position to utilize the credit, they applied for refund of the Cenvat credit availed by them. The reason is that all their products were exported and there was no domestic clearance. The lower authority rejected the refund claims on the ground that in terms of sub-rule(1) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nal has held that erstwhile Rule 13 of the Central Excise Rules 1944, allows exports without payment of duty, which is not the same as goods chargeable to NIL duty or exempt goods. Hence, it was held that the provisions of erstwhile Rule 57C (now Rule 6(1)) did not apply to exports. Further, in Reliance Industries Ltd. v. CCE, Bombay - 1995 (78) E.L.T. 595 (T) the Tribunal has held that when the final products are cleared under bond for export in terms of erstwhile Rules 191B/191BB of the Rules of 1944, they were neither exempt goods nor Nil duty goods. Hence, Modvat credit was held admissible. He relied on the above mentioned case-laws. Further, the learned Advocate pointed out that the appellants could have procured indigenous goods witho....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....5) E.L.T. 942 (Tri. -Mumbai) Refund of AED (T&TA) allowed even when that duty was exempt on the exported goods. 4. Transformers & Electricals Kerala Ltd. v. CCE, Cochin -2006 (205) E.L.T. 1136 (Tri- Bang.) Cenvat credit taken on inputs for repair and export upheld even thought. repairs do not attract duty 5.2 The learned Departmental Representative pointed out that the appellants could have followed the procedure of not obtaining the inputs without payment of duty. She reiterated the impugned Orders-in-Appeal. 5.3 On a very careful consideration of the issue, I find that the lower authorities have held that credit of duty paid on inputs is not admissible by virtue of Rule 6(1) of the CENVAT Credit Rules. Howeve....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... India and supplied against International Competitive Bidding in terms of Notification No. 6/2002-Central Excise dated the 1st March, 2002 or Notification No. 6/2006-Central Excise dated the 1st March, 2002, as the case may be." On a careful reading of Rule 6(6) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, it is very clear that the provisions of sub-rule (1), (2), (3) and (4) shall not be applicable to goods removed without payment of duty, which are actually cleared for export under bond in terms of the provisions of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The lower authorities were not prepared to give the benefit of this Rule to the appellant on the ground that these goods were exported under the 100% EOU Scheme and not under the Central Excise Rules, 200....