9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (11) TMI 872 - AT - Central ExciseRefund claim - denial on the ground that the respondent is manufacturing dutiable as well as exempted goods and such bond for exempted variety of goods cannot be accepted - Held that - similar issue decided in the case of CCE Versus Drish Shoes Ltd. 2008 (10) TMI 664 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI , where it was held that Considering language of Rule 6(6)(v) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 the petitioner are entitled to avail Cenvat Credit in respect of the inputs used in the manufacture of the final products being exported irrespective of the fact that the final products are otherwise exempt - refund allowed - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
Issues:
Execution of Bond for export of exempted goods under Notification No.04/2008 - Validity of rejection by Assistant Commissioner - Applicability of CBEC Circular No.928/18/2010 - Interpretation of Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules - Precedents set by Tribunal and High Courts regarding execution of Bond for export of exempted goods. Analysis: The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chandigarh involved a dispute regarding the execution of a Bond for the export of exempted goods by a manufacturer. The respondent, a manufacturer of Menthol Flakes and Menthol Crystals, was exporting goods exempted under Notification No.04/2008. The Assistant Commissioner rejected the respondent's application for execution of Bond for export on the grounds that the respondent was manufacturing both dutiable and exempted goods, and a bond for exempted goods could not be accepted. The respondent challenged this decision before the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) who allowed the respondent to issue a bond for exported goods, relying on the Tribunal's decision in the case of CCE Vs. Drish Shoes Ltd. The Revenue contended that as the goods manufactured by the respondent were exempted from duty, as per CBEC Circular No.928/18/2010, there was no requirement for the execution of a bond. However, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) had considered the issue in light of the Tribunal's decision in the case of CCE Vs. Drish Shoes Ltd., which held that the manufacturer was entitled to avail Cenvat Credit for inputs used in the final product cleared for export under bond. The Tribunal upheld this decision, citing the High Court's ruling in the case of M/s Repro India Ltd. Vs. Union of India, emphasizing the necessity of the bond to avoid liabilities in case of failure to export exempted goods. The Tribunal further referenced the decisions of the Himachal Pradesh High Court and the Punjab & Haryana High Court, which supported the view that a bond was required for goods exported under exemption, even if no excise duty was payable on the final product. Based on these precedents and the interpretation of Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals)'s order and upheld the decision, dismissing the appeal filed by the Revenue.
|
