TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (12) TMI 341
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is Tribunal. 2. Relevant facts for the purpose are: The appellant herein is engaged in manufacturing and export of gems and jewellery. He had filed a refund claim under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2000 and Notification No. 27/2012-CE dated 18.06.2012 in respect of the cenvat credit taken on the inputs services used in the manufacture of the finished goods which were subsequently exported by the appellant. The Department on scrutinizing of refund claim documents found that the appellant is engaged in manufacture of an excisable goods i.e. gems and jewellery falling under Chapter 71 of the first Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and cleared the same for DTA as well as exported the goods out of the country. However, the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....input services used for export under Rule 5 of CCR, 2004 read with Notification No. 27 dated 18.06.2012. The Department while rejecting the claim has wrongly considered the goods of the appellant as being excisable goods and that the appellant was not registered as the manufacturer thereof. Rule 6(1) and Rule 7 of CCR, 2004 has also wrongly been applied while rejecting the Appeal. 4.1 It is further submitted that being a manufacturer the services in question filed by appellant are eligible to be the input services for the purpose of cenvat credit availment and such credit can be utilized for payment of duty of other products. If this is not possible for any reason the assesse is entitled to get refund under Rule 5 of CCR, 2004 which does....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed goods which were subsequently exported by them. The 3 of the refund claims have been rejected mainly on the ground that the goods of appellant are excisable however exempted from Central Excise duty vide Notification No. 12 dated 17.03.2012 and they were not registered as manufacturer of excisable goods with Central Excise Department. Due to the same reason the credit of the service tax attributable to service used in one unit was denied to be distributed. Since the refund claim was filed under Rule 5 of CCR it is observed that following 4 conditions are required to be fulfilled:- (i) One manufacturer/service provider. (ii) Clearance of final product or intermediary product/ provision of due to services. (iii) Under bond or lett....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... coming to the allegation of the appellant not being registered for manufacture of excisable goods, I observe that Rule 3 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 prescribes that cenvat credit can be taken by a manufacturer or a provider of due to service and that there is no requirement of the registration at all. This Tribunal in the case of Wipro BPO Solutions Limited Vs. CST 2012 (34) STT 190 has held that refund of service tax paid on input services were exported. 9. The finding of the Commissioner(Appeals) mandating the registration are therefore not sustainable. Otherwise also it is admitted fact that the appellant Sitapura, Jaipur was having centralized service tax registration for two units namely M/s Vaibhav Global Ltd.(100% EOU) Sitapura,....