9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 1436X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r Tariff Heading No. 30.04 of CET 1985. Besides manufacture of medicaments, which are chargeable to duty, the respondent was also manufacture life saving medicaments, which were exempted from whole of duty of excise under Notification No. 6/2006-CE dated 1.3.2006. During the period under consideration, the appellant has claimed Cenvat credit on the inputs which was used in the manufacture of the medicines and the same was also exported. The adjudicating authority has allowed the claim of the respondent. Being aggrieved, the department has filed the present appeal. 3. With this background, we have heard Shri G.R. Singh, ld. DR and Shri R.K. Philips, ld. Counsels for the parties. 4. After hearing both the parties, it appears that the identi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct 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. 8. The Cenvat credit is allowed n (sic) the duty paid on inputs to mitigate the effect of double taxation of levying duty on inputs as also on the final product. If, however, the exempted final product ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r created by Rule 6(1) will not apply for goods exported. Considering the conscious and express provisions contained in Rule 6(6)(v) for exported goods, to deny the permission to export under bond and/or to levy 10% on the value of the exported goods under Rule 6(3)(b) on the footing that the printed books exempt and, therefore, attract Rule 6(1) would be incorrect and completely nullify and frustrate Rule 6(6)(v)." 5. Similar views were expressed by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Sharp Menthol India Ltd. - 2011 (27) ELT 212 which was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. Sharp Menthol India Ltd. - 2015 (320) ELT A 104(SC). 6. By following the ratio laid down in the above mentioned case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
