TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 736X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts used in manufacture of exempted products. Though Rule 6 (6) (v) creates an exemption inter alia in respect of excisable goods removed without payment of duty for export but only for those exports as were made under bond in terms of Central Excise Rules, 2002. The export in the present case has not been made under bond - Sub-rule 6 also though relied upon by the appellant as an exception, but as already observed the said exception is applicable though in case of excisable goods removed without payment of duty but only when they are cleared for export under bonds in terms of provisions of Central Excise Rule, 2002. Hence the exception as prayed for are found not available to the appellant. The appellant was not entitled to claim the Cen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as denied to claim the benefit of Rule 6(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Violation of Rule 9(2) and Rule 11(2) of Central Excise Rules was also alleged. The said proposal of rejection was initially confirmed vide Order-in-Original No. 02/2016 dated 13.05.2016. The appeal thereof has been rejected vide Order-in-Appeal No. 44/2018 dated 20.02.2018. Being aggrieved the appellant is before this Tribunal. 2. Learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the denial of refund to the appellant for want of bond or letter of undertaking is highly unreasonable. It is submitted that bond/letter of undertaking is required only when there is a duty liability on the exported goods. But in the present case the finished goods exported by the appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ll such particulars as are mentioned in the proviso to Rule 9 (2) of CCR, 2004 that the rejection of refund on the ground of lack of documents specifically as that of invoices is highly unjustified. Order under challenge is accordingly prayed to be set aside and appeal is prayed to be allowed. 3. Per contra learned DR while laying emphasis upon the findings in para 7.10 and 7.11 has given sufficient reason for rejection of refund on three of the grounds. Impressing upon no infirmity in the order department has prayed for the dismissal of appeal. 4. Having heard the rival contentions and perusing the entire records. I observe and hold as follows: 4.1 The refund claim of Cenvat credit on imports as was filed by appellant on 29.10.201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Admittedly, the appellant s final product i.e. quartz was subject to nil rate of duty. 7. Coming to Rule 5 under CCR, 2004 which the impugned claim has been filed, it is clear that no doubt refund of Cenvat credit is available to a manufacturer who clears a final product for export without payment of duty but the mandate of such clearance is that it should be under bond or letter of undertaking. Admittedly, the appellant has not exported manufactured quartz under bond or letter of undertaking. The object of this bond or letter of undertaking is that the registered person binds itself to pay the leviable duty/tax along with the interest at a subsequent date when at the time of export he is not willing to pay the duty or is not in a posi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4-CE (NT) dated 06.09.2004 as amended Or can claim duty drawback under Customs, Central Excise Duties and Service Tax Drawback Rule, 1995 9. Further, perusing Rule 6 of CCR, 2004, it becomes clear that Cenvat credit shall not be allowed to a manufacturer of final product on such quantity of input as is used in or in relation to the manufacture of exempted goods. Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, prescribes the procedure of Cenvat credit on the manufacturer who Manufacturers both dutiable and exempted products. In this situation, the following options are prescribed: No Cenvat Credit on the inputs used exclusively in the exempted goods To maintain separate inventory for common inputs used in both dutiable and exempted goods I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Vs. Drish Shoes Ltd. reported as 2010 (254) ELT 417 (H.P.) . But it is perused that the said decision has been passed based upon the exception as was given in Rule 6(5) of CCR, 2002. It has been brought to my notice that Rule 6(5) stands omitted w.e.f. 1st April, 2011. Decision of Drish Shoes Ltd. (supra) is a decision prior the said amendment. That is decision of the time when the exception of 6(5) Rule was in the statute books. Hence, post amendment when the said exception clause has been omitted, decision of Drish Shoes Ltd. (supra) holds no good law. All other decisions which have been relied upon by learned Counsel since follows Drish Shoes Ltd. (supra) decision, hence are not applicable. Sub-rule 6 also though relied upon by the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
