9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (8) TMI 170X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orted under bond - Tribunal on the identical issue in the case of Punjab Stainless Steel Industries v. CCE, Delhi-I, reported in [2008 - TMI - 4544 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI] allowed refund claim, which was upheld by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, as reported in the case of CCE, Delhi-I v. Punjab Stainless Steel – [2008 - TMI - 31677 - HIGH COURT DELHI]. – Held that appellant is eligible for refund of Cenvat credit in exported goods under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules - ST/342/2007-SM (BR) - 1225/2009-SM (BR)(PB), - Dated:- 26-8-2009 - Shri P.K. Das, Member (J) Shri Hemant Bajaj, Advocate, for the Appellant. <?xml:namespace prefix = st2 /> Shri I. Baig, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order] - The relevant facts of the case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... im, which was upheld by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, as reported in the case of CCE, Delhi-I v. Punjab Stainless Steel - 2009 (234) E.L.T. 605 (Del.). 3. Learned DR on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals). He submits that Commissioner (Appeals) in detail discussed the change of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 and Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, whereby refund of unutilized credit under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 was restricted. He also submits that the case law relied upon by the learned Advocate in the case of Repro India would not apply in the present case. It is his contention that in the case of Repro India (supra) the assessee was manufacturing dutiable and exempted goods but, in the present ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal products are otherwise exempt." 5. Commissioner (Appeals) observed that Rule 6(6) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 indicates the words "exempted goods", which was changed in Rule 6(6) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 with the word "goods removed without payment of duty." It has been observed that Rule 6(6) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 restricted the refund of unutilized credit in respect of inputs used in the manufacture of exempted goods or exempted service. I find that the Bombay High Court in the case of Repro India Ltd. (supra) observed as under:- "A perusal of the aforesaid Rules would clearly show that sub-rule (i) to (vi) are identical and difference in rule 6(6) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and Rule 6(5) of the Cenvat Credit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
