2024 (8) TMI 848

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n up together for hearing and disposal. 2. Briefly stated the facts are that the appellant, M/s. Mineral Enterprises Ltd., are engaged in the extraction of iron ore from the mines falling Chapter 2601 of Central Excise Tariff Act (CETA), 1985. They had filed six refund claims under Notification No.5/2006-CE (NT) dated 14.03.2006 issued under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The appellant had exported iron ore fines and lumps after undertaking processes like mining, processing, crushing, grinding, screening and washing. These processes were not considered as a manufacturing activity and hence, inputs utilised in the above goods which were exported were not eligible for refund. Hence, the refund claims were rejected which was upheld by....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rts Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE: 2008 (223) ELT 100 (Tri.-Chennai) and Stone Age Ltd. vs. CCE: 2016 (342) ELT 286 (Tri.-Del.) to substantiate his argument that in the context of export of goods, it was held that even if the final product is manufactured by the appellant does not amount to manufacture, the appellant is entitled to CENVAT credit and eligible for unutilised CENVAT credit. 4. The learned Authorised Representative (AR) reiterating the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) submitted that the impugned order rightly held that the input service credit is not admissible as they are neither exporting the output services nor finished goods manufactured from dutiable inputs. 5. Heard both sides. The limited issue to be decided is wheth....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....-in-Appeal No.138/2008 dated 31.10.2008 now stands set aside by this Tribunal vide Final Order No.20489-20500/2017 dated 20.04.2017, wherein it was observed that: "6. After considering the submissions of both the sides and perusal of the material on record, I find that the adjudicating authority has allowed the refund on few input services and rejected the refund only for clearing and forwarding services; professional services; loading, screening and road laying; bank charges and commission paid to foreign agent for procuring export orders and the Department has not filed any appeal against the same. Further, I also find that in the impugned order, the Commissioner (A) has gone beyond the show-cause notice as well as the grounds of....