TMI Blog2013 (1) TMI 769X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 00/- under Rule 15(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant is a 100% EOU and engaged in the manufacture of absorbent cotton falling under Chapter Heading 56 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and working under the Manufacture and other operations in Warehouse Regulations, 1966. The appellant availed Cenvat credit of Service Tax paid on input service for the period from March, 2008 to September, 2008 and from October, 2008 to March, 2009. The appellant did not utilize the Cenvat credit and it was lying in balance in their Cenvat account. The department denied them the above Cenvat credit on the ground that they have availed the benefit of Exemption Notification No. 30/2004-C. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hey have availed the benefit of the Notification by mistake. Therefore, they are eligible to take Cenvat credit on the service tax paid on the input service used in the manufacture of their final product. Further, the department has not treated their export under bond on the ground that they have not debited the B-17 bond, the contention is that in respect of final product exported under bond at no point of time did the department ask the appellant to debit such running bond and the B-17 bond simpliciter was sufficient to secure the revenue. The contention is that the show cause notice was issued that they were not entitled to the benefit of Cenvat credit in view of the provisions of Notification 30/2004 whereas in Order-in-Original it was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... exempted goods. The contention is that the decision is binding on all the authorities functioning within the State and in support of their contention they have placed reliance on the Hon ble Supreme Court decision in the case of East India Commercial Co. Ltd. v. CC, Calcutta reported in 1983 (13) E.L.T. 1342 (S.C.). 5. The contention of the learned AR is that the appellant has not availed the benefit of Notification No. 30/2004 by mistake but they have availed the benefit of the Notification consciously which is clear from the fact that they were also clearing their wastage by availing the benefit of the Notification. The contention is that they were not debiting their running bond which shows that they were availing the benefit of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w of the provisions of Rules 6(1) and 6(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, which are reproduced hereunder :- (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 mentioned in sub-rule (2). (2) Where a manufacturer or provider of output service avails of Cenvat credit in respect of any inputs or input serviced, and manufactures such final products or provides such output service which are chargeable to duty or tax as well as exempted goods or services, then, the manufacturer or provider of output service shall maintain separate accounts for receipt, consumption and inventory of input ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 provides that no Cenvat credit will be available in respect of the inputs used in the manufacture of exempted products. Rule 6(6)(v) of the Cenvat Credit Rules creates an exemption inter alia in respect of the excisable goods removed without payment of duty for export under bond in terms of Central Excise Rules, 2002. Considering the language of Rule 6(6)(v) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 the petitioners are entitled to avail Cenvat credit in respect of the inputs used in the manufacture of the final products being exported irrespective of the fact that the final products are otherwise exempt. (Underline supplied) So far as the decision cited by the learned AR in the ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
