Latest - TMI e-Newsletter
New User/ Regiser
2022 (9) TMI 736 - Central Excise
Refund of Cenvat credit - denial of refund on the ground that since the goods were exported without payment of duty but not under the bond or the letter of undertaking, that appellant was denied to claim the benefit of Rule 6(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - Denial also on the ground that claim of refund pertains to the period from 30.10.2014 to 29.10.2015 during which the appellant was not having any central excise registration - Rule 6(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - HELD THAT:- As per Rule 6 (1) of CCR, 2004 no Cenvat credit will be available in respect of inputs 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 Cenvat credit of duty paid on imports used in manufacture of the product to which nil rate of duty was applicable. In such situation if some credit has been availed Rule 14 should have first been applied by the department - In the present case, it is not coming apparent as to whether said rule 14 has been complied with by the department prior rejecting the impugned refund.
Matter remanded back to the original Adjudicating Authority to check for the compliance of Rule 14 CCR, 2004 and then to freshly adjudicate the impugned refund - appeal allowed by way of remand.