2024 (9) TMI 1027

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e extraction of iron ore lumps and fines falling under Chapter 2601 1130 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 from the mines situated in Chitradurga and are also exporting the same to various countries. During the relevant period April 2006 to March 2008, they have filed cash refund of accumulated CENVAT credit under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Notification No.05/2006-CE (NT) dated 14.03.2006. Since the exported goods were attracting 'Nil' rate of duty, the appellant did not execute any bond. Show-cause notices were issued periodically for rejection of the refund claims. On adjudication, the refund claims were rejected. Aggrieved by the said order, they filed appeal before the learned Commissioner (A), who in turn remand....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ether the appellants are entitled to cash refund of accumulated CENVAT credit under Rule 5 of CCR, 2004 during the relevant period. The only ground on which the refund claims were rejected by the adjudicating authority and upheld in the impugned order is that the appellant had not executed the bond while exporting the goods. Responding to the said observation of the learned Commissioner (A), the learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that the execution of bond is not required since the goods exported were iron ore lumps and fines which did not attract any duty at the relevant time. 6. We find that this issue has been considered by this Tribunal in the case of CCE vs. Bellary Iron Ores P. Ltd. (supra) following the judgment of the....