9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (5) TMI 932X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w that export under bond is only a procedure. The claim for refund should not be disallowed when the fact of export is not in dispute. In the case of JOLLY BOARD LTD VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE [ 2014 (3) TMI 124 - CESTAT MUMBAI ], the refund claim of the party was denied by Lower Authorities on the ground that the assessee is the manufacturer of exempted goods, therefore as per Rule 6 (1) of CCR, 2004, they are not entitled to take input credit. Consequently, they are not entitled to file refund claim. Another reason for denial of refund was that goods are not exported under bond - In the case of COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE VERSUS DRISH SHOES LTD. [ 2010 (5) TMI 334 - HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT] , the Hon ble High Court of Hi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Notification No.12/2012 dated 17-03-12, all the final products of the Appellant became exempted from payment of duty. Appellant filed refund claim for Rs.4,00,278/- claiming refund of accumulated Cenvat Credit for the period from April, 2017 to June, 2017 under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 CCR, 2004 read with Notification No.27/2012-CE dated 18-06-12. The said refund claim pertained to that portion of Cenvat Credit which was attributable to export of goods. The Jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner rejected the said claim after observing that in terms of Rule (6)(1) of CCR, 2004, Appellant was not eligible to avail Cenvat Credit. He also observed that refund under Rule 5 of CCR, 2004 is admissible to those manufactures, who are engage ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... L.T. 417 (H.P.). 4. The learned Departmental Representative justified and reiterated the impugned order. 5. Heard both sides and perused the appeal records. 6. The main issue in this appeal is as to whether refund of accumulated Cenvat Credit is allowable on export of goods which are exempted from payment of duty, particularly when the same has not been exported under bond. 7. I take note of the fact that the Appellant has been allowed refund for the prior period. I find that this issue is no more res integra. It is by now the settled law that refund of accumulated Cenvat Credit is allowable on export of goods even if they are exempted from payment of Central Excise Duty. It has also been the settled law that export under bond is only a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... input duty credit is not allowed, the goods will become costly in International market and less competitive. 7. The issue came up before the Hon‟ble High Court of Bombay in Repro India Ltd. (supra) wherein the Hon‟ble High Court 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. Further, I find that in the case of Salzer Controls Ltd. - 2003 (160) E.L.T. 1169 and Paras Ship Breakers Ltd. this Tribunal has held that non-execution of bonds are only technical lapse. Further, in the case of Well Known Polyester Ltd. (supra) wherein the exempted goods were exp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... redit Rules, 2002, as also the Rules of 2004, so as to avoid indirect double taxation on inputs. However, this rule is not absolute. It is subject to Exception clause, contained in Rule 6(5) of the Rules of 2002 and 6(6) of the Rules of 2004, and one of the exceptions is in respect of excisable goods, which are cleared for export under bond in terms of the provisions of Central Excise Rules, 2002. 17. Subrule (5) of Rule 6 of the Rules of 2002 was applicable only in case of exempted goods. That meant that the exception was not applicable in case of dutiable goods. It appears that this led to anomalous situations. For example, if the goods were dutiable and were exported, credit for CENVAT could not be claimed in respect of input of those ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wered against the appellant." 8. It would be clear that in the decision of the Himachal Pradesh High Court, the judgment of this Court in case of Repro India Ltd. v. Union of India reported in 2009 (235) E.L.T. 614 (Bom.) is also relied, wherein it is held that expression "excisable goods" is wider than the expression "exempted goods" as it includes both dutiable and also exempted goods. 9. It is also submitted by the learned counsel Mr. Ladda that the judgment of the Himachal Pradesh High Court in case of Commissioner of Central Excise v. Drish Shoes Ltd. (supra) is confirmed by the Apex Court in Appeal No. 2887/2012. The learned counsel submits that the judgment in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise v. Drish Shoes Ltd. (supra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
