2016 (9) TMI 1355

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d by the respondent­assesee for refund of Cenvat credit on exempted goods. The Tribunal relied upon the judgment in case of Commissioner of Central Excise v. Drish Shoes Ltd. reported in 2010 (254) E.L.T. 417 delivered by Himachal Pradesh High Court. 2. Mr. Ladda learned counsel for appellant strenuously contend that the respondent assessee is not entitled to the benefit of Cenvat credit on the input or input services of the exempted goods. The judgment delivered by the Tribunal is not in consonance with the provisions of the Statute and Rules. The learned counsel submits that Rule 6(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 has not been taken into consideration by the Tribunal. Since the assesee is exclusively manufacturing and removin....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....learned counsel submits that the finished goods or end products are exempted and as per the judgment in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise v. Drish Shoes Ltd. (supra) Cenvat credit would be available in respect of inputs. 6. We have considered the submissions. 7. These appeals can only be entertained on substantial questions of law. As far as contention of the learned counsel for the appellant about observance of Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 is concerned, the same was not a subject matter of contention before the authorities or the Tribunal nor is raised in the present appeal. Even otherwise, the subject matter involved in the present appeals was also the subject matter before the Himachal Pradesh High Court....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....arned Counsel for the appellant argued that term 'excisable goods' used in sub­rule (6) of Rule 6 of 2004 Rules, meant only dutiable goods. Submission has been noticed only to be rejected. 19. A Division Bench at Bombay High Court in 2009 (235) E.L.T. 614 (Bom.), Repro India Ltd. v. Union of India, while dealing with a similar situation and interpreting the provisions of Rule 6(5) if CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002 and Rule 6(6) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, has held that expression "excisable goods" is wider than the expression "exempted goods", as it includes both dutiable and also exempted goods. 20. In view of the above discussion, we hold that an assessee, manufacturing goods chargeable to nil duty, is eligible to avail CENVA....