2024 (6) TMI 1105

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... final products and final products that attracted nil rate of duty. The appellant felt that the availment of CENVAT credit of duty of Rs.27,33,539/- during 2012 - 13 and 2013 - 14 paid on common inputs that were used in the manufacture of final products which attracted nil rate of duty was improper as it was contrary to Rule 6 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and therefore they appear to have reversed the said CENVAT credit along with interest of Rs.3,85,361/- under intimation to the jurisdictional Central Excise officer. Thereafter, the appellant field a refund claim on 13..11.2014 under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 seeking refund of the above reversed / payment of CENVAT credit amount and interest as according to them the final pro....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....STR 701 (Tri. Del.) 5. After going through the said orders/decisions, we find that the assertion of the learned Advocate to be correct inasmuch as a more or less similar issue has been dealt with and decided in favour of the taxpayer. Relevant observation is as under: "5. In this case the appellant has procured inputs/input service on payment of duty which were gone in the manufacturing of exempted goods which were exported by the appellant. These facts are not in dispute. The intent of the legislation is not in dispute that the taxes are not to be exported. The same issue came up before Jobelle (supra) wherein this tribunal held that the sub-rule (5) makes an exception when exempted finished goods are either cleared to a free t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ot absolute. It is subject to exception clause, contained in Rule 6(5) of the 2002 and 6(6) of the Rules of 2004, and one of the 'exceptions is in respect of excisable goods, which are cleared for export under bond in terms of the provisions of Central Excise Rules, 2002. **** ****** **** 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 ab....