2018 (2) TMI 924

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ng under Chapter 2601 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. During the course of manufacture of the goods, the respondent received  certain input services on which they have availed cenvat credit and as they could not utilize the cenvat credit, filed the refund claim under Rule 5 read with Notification No. 5/2006 CE dated 14.03.2006. The Revenue is of the view that as the goods exported by the respondent is an exempted goods, therefore as per Rule 6(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004, they are not entitled to cenvat credit on input/input services used for manufacturing of exempted goods.  Under these circumstances, they are not entitled to cenvat credit, consequently they were not entitled for the refund of the same. The matter was ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... export under Bond without payment of duty. If the goods are exported on payment of duty after taking credit of duty paid on the inputs and utilizing the same, then the question of refund of input duty would not arise. But is clearly the Governments policy not to export the domestic duties, on the finished goods or on the inputs, to the International market. If refund of input duty credit is not allowed, the goods will become costly in International market and less competitive. 6. Further, this  issue came up before the Hon'ble High Court in the case of Drish Shoes Ltd. (supra) wherein the facts were the assessee were manufacturers of finished leather and finished leather was exported. After export they claimed refund on accou....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 has been made applicable to all excisable goods. 18. Learned counsel for the appellant argue that term "excisable goods" used in sub rule (6) of Rule 6 of 2004 Rules, meant only dutiable goods. Submission has been noticed only to be rejected. 19. A Division Bench of 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) of 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 as also exempted goods. 20. In view of the above discussion, we ho....