9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (2) TMI 924 - AT - Service TaxRefund claim - input/input services - Revenue is of the view that as the goods exported by the respondent is an exempted goods, therefore as per Rule 6(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004, they are not entitled to cenvat credit on input/input services used for manufacturing of exempted goods - Held that - identical issue decided in the case of JOLLY BOARD LTD Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE 2014 (3) TMI 124 - CESTAT MUMBAI , where it was held that CENVAT credit used in the manufacture of final product being exported irrespective of the fact that final product are otherwise exempted by provisions of Rule 6(6)(v) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 are applicable - refund allowed - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
Issues:
1. Entitlement to cenvat credit on input/input services used for manufacturing exempted goods. 2. Refund claim under Rule 5 read with Notification No. 5/2006 CE dated 14.03.2006. 3. Interpretation of Rule 6(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004. 4. Applicability of exception clauses in Rule 6(5) of Cenvat Credit Rules 2002 and Rule 6(6) of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004. 5. Execution of bond for export of exempted goods. Analysis: Issue 1: The appellant argued that as per Rule 6(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004, cenvat credit on input/input services was not available for manufacturing exempted goods. The Tribunal referred to a similar case of Jolly Board Ltd. where it was observed that the intent of the legislation was to avoid exporting taxes. The Tribunal noted that the exception clause in Rule 6(5) allows for refund of input duty credit when goods are exported after taking credit of duty paid on inputs. The Tribunal emphasized the government's policy not to export domestic duties to the international market to maintain competitiveness. Issue 2: The Tribunal cited the case of Drish Shoes Ltd. where the Hon'ble High Court held that an assessee manufacturing goods chargeable to nil duty can avail Cenvat credit paid on inputs under the exception clause to Rule 6(1). The Tribunal further clarified that a manufacturer exporting final products exempt from duty can claim a refund of Cenvat under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004. Issue 3: The Tribunal discussed the interpretation of Rule 6(5) of Cenvat Credit Rules 2002 and Rule 6(6) of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004. It was noted that the expression "excisable goods" is wider than "exempted goods," as it includes both dutiable and exempted goods. The Tribunal held that an assessee manufacturing exempted goods eligible to avail Cenvat credit on inputs under the exception clause. Issue 4: The Tribunal referenced the case of Repro India Ltd. where the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay held that Cenvat credit used in manufacturing final products being exported is applicable, regardless of the final product's exemption status. The Tribunal also highlighted previous decisions where non-execution of bonds for export was considered a technical lapse and not a reason to deny refunds. Issue 5: The Tribunal noted that in the absence of execution of a bond for export of exempted goods, as in the present case, where goods are exempted, the execution of a bond was not required. The Tribunal upheld the impugned order, dismissing the appeals filed by the Revenue. In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the decision allowing the refund claims to the respondent, citing precedents and interpretations of relevant rules and exceptions.
|
