9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 25X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere otherwise excisable goods without payment of duty. India is a party to the WTO regime and, therefore, it is permissible for it to neutralise duties on inputs, whether in the form of goods or services - we see no difficulty in the Assessee's case falling in the exception carved out in Rule 6(6)(v) of the 2004 Rules. The purpose, apparently, behind carving out of such exceptions appears to be, to neutralise the impact of the duties paid by the exporters, with regard to input tax, whether paid on goods or services. The objective, obviously, is not to export duties, so as to provide much needed competitive edge to Indian exporter in foreign markets. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.144 of 20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... facturing Tractors, Tractor Engines and parts thereof. The aforementioned goods manufactured by the Assessee, fall under the following chapter sub headings 87019090, 84082020 and 87089900 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (in short, 'the 1985 Act'). 5.2. The Assessee, it appears, had availed of Cenvat Credit, amounting to ₹ 72,19,504/-, as it had paid service tax on the basis of reverse charge mechanism qua services rendered by a non- resident service provider. The Assessee had paid sales commissions to the said service provider. The services rendered by the service provider were taxable under the category Business Auxillary Service . Since, it was an input service, as indicated above, service tax was paid by the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tioned SCN. It was, interalia, contended by the Assessee that reliance placed on Rule 6 (1) of the 2004 rules, which, apparently, prohibited Cenvat Credit being taken qua exempted goods, had to be read along with Rule 6(6) of the 2004 Rules. 6.1. It appears, that the adjudicating authority was not persuaded by the stand taken by the Assessee and, accordingly, proceded to pass the Order-in-original dated 17.10.2011, whereby, the demand raised was confirmed. 6.2. Being aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal with the Tribunal. The Tribunal, as indicated above, reversed the view of the adjudicating authority. 7. It is, in this background, the Revenue has preferred the captioned appeal. 8. Ms.Hemalatha, who appears on behalf of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of dutiable and exempted goods and provider of taxable and exempted services. - (1) The CENVAT credit shall not be allowed on such quantity of input or input service which is used in the manufacture of exempted goods or for provision of exempted services, except in the circumstances mentionedin sub-rule (2) Provided that the CENVAT credit on inputs shall not be denied to job worker referred to in rule 12AA of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, on the ground that the said inputsare used in the manufacture of goods cleared without payment of duty under the provisions of that rule. (2)..... (3)..... (4).... (5).... (6) The provisions of sub-rules (1), (2), (3) and (4) shall not be applicable in case the excisable goo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cisable, the only reason, that Central Excise duty was not paid or was not payable, was, on account of the provisions of the 2006 notification. Therefore, upon executing the bond, the Assessee removed what were otherwise excisable goods without payment of duty. 13.1. One of the exceptions to sub-rule (1) of Rule 6 is a circumstance, where excisable goods are exported pursuant to the execution of bond, in terms of Central Excise Rules 2002. 14. Therefore, on a plain reading, we see no difficulty in the Assessee's case falling in the exception carved out in Rule 6(6)(v) of the 2004 Rules. The purpose, apparently, behind carving out of such exceptions appears to be, to neutralise the impact of the duties paid by the exporters, with r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
