2023 (12) TMI 113

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cts of the case in brief are that the Appellant is manufacturer of Menthol/Menthol Crystals (29061100) & DMO (33012590) of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The present issue relates to demand for reversal of Cenvat credit on Menthol Crystals which was exempted vide notification 4/2008-CE dated 01.03.2008, while DMO remained chargeable to duty. The Appellant had in stock 1503.9 Kgs of Menthol Crystals and 22131.6 Kgs of Menthol Powder involving duty credit of Rs. 20,59,814 which was demanded under Rule 6 & 11 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with section 11A for stocks lying in the factory as on 01.03.2008. 3. The show cause notice was issued and the demand was confirmed by original authority and penalty was imposed which was also af....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Being aggrieved with the impugned order, the Appellant has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that there is no dispute that export was undertaken as per ARE-1, however the Original Authority disallowed the credit holding in Para 9 of the order, "However, the provisions of either sub-rule (1) or sub-rule (2) read with sub-rule (3) of Rule 6 would not be applicable, if the Appellant were exporting their finished goods out of India under bond or under Letter of Undertaking." Copies of relevant ARE-1s were submitted before the Adjudicating Authority. Therefore, clearance of said exported consignments under ARE-1s itself indicates that said exports were made under Bond/LUT. 6. He....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....al records. 10. We find that the issue is no more res integra and is squarely covered by the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise V/s Drish Shoes Ltd. reported as 2010 (254) E.L.T. 417 (H.P.). Relevant paras of the judgment are reproduced below:- "14. The Commissioner (Appeals), while accepting the appeal and reversing the order of Assistant Commissioner, held that Assistant Commissioner had not taken holistic view of the matter and allowed himself to be misled by reading only a few provisions. He held that the object of exception clause contained in Rule 6, as noticed hereinabove, was to promote the export of goods manufactured in India. He observed that in a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....it Rules, 2004 has been made applicable to all excisable goods. 18. Learned counsel for the appellant argued 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 hold that a....