TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (4) TMI 516
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ice, repair & maintenance service, telephone charges, consultancy services, which were used in relation to the manufacture of iron ore fines falling under Chapter 2601, during the period April 2007 to September 2007. In the adjudication order dt. 15/05/2008, the assessee's claim came to be rejected primarily on the ground that the assessee was ineligible to avail the cenvat credit on the input services claimed. The assessee preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Authority who vide the impugned Order-in-Appeal No.303/2009 dt. 24/07/2009 directed the adjudicating authority to sanction substantial refund (except Rs. 36,903/-), against which the present appeal has been filed by the Revenue. 2. Heard Shri Rama Holla, learned Superintend....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... would also contend that there was no requirement of export the goods under bond or Letter of Undertaking since, as held by the First Appellate Authority, the goods manufactured and exported by the assessee were chargeable to 'NIL' rate of duty and there was no requirement to furnish bond or Letter of Undertaking. He would also rely on a Final Order of this Bench in the assessee's own case for a different period wherein a similar issue was considered and the appeal was decided in the assessee's favour (Final Order No.21491/2018 dt. 03/10/2018). 5. We have heard the rival contentions and have gone through the orders / decisions referred to during the course of argument. We find, prima facie, that the issue is no more res integra since the s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Vs. CCE, Delhi-l - 2008 (226) E.L.T. 587 (Tri.-Del.) is squarely applicable to the present case as the facts and circumstances are identical. It was held in this case that when the CBEC manual of instruction provides for input stage rebate on both excisable and non-excisable goods, a manufacturer is entitled to avail cenvat credit on inputs both for exported goods whether dutiable or exempted. The said decision of the CESTAT has been upheld by the High Court of Delhi reported in 2009 (234) E.L.T. 605. Further we find that in the case of Jolly Board Ltd. Vs. CCE, cited supra wherein it has been held that cenvat credit is admissible in terms of Rule 6(6) when goods are exported and there is no requirement to execute any bond if the exported g....