9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 25X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2. The only issue which arises for consideration is, whether the Assessee can avail of Cenvat Credit of duty, paid on input services, in view of the fact that it manufactures goods, which, though exempt from duty are otherwise exported. 3. The captioned appeal was admitted on 29.01.2013, when, the following question of law was framed for our consideration. " In the facts and circumstances of the case, whether an assessee manufacturing wholly exempted goods (chargeable to NIL rate of duty) is eligible to avail Cenvat Credit of duty paid on the said input services under Rule 6(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, used in the manufacture of such exempted goods, which are exported" 4. The Tribunal has ruled in favour of the Assessee and in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n'). 5.4. Counsels for the parties have indicated to us that the Assessee's goods would fall under serial No.40 of the aforementioned notification. This notification, being an exemption notification, was issued under Section 5A of the Central Excise Act 1944, (in short, 'the 1944 Act'). 5.5. The Revenue, however, took exception to the Cenvat Credit claimed by the Assessee and, accordingly, issued a show cause notice dated 29.10.2010 (in short, 'SCN'). By virtue of this SCN, the Assessee was called upon to show cause as to why input service credit, amounting to Rs. 72,19,504/- ought not to be recovered with interest under Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 (in short, 'the 2004 Rules') read with Section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... says that sub-rule (6) of Rule 6 of 2004 Rules creates an exemption to the provision of Rule 6(1). It is contended that Rule 6(6) would apply to exempted goods, as the purpose of the said provision is, to give impetus to exports by neutralising the duties, paid on input services, so that, the goods, so exported, are competitively priced in foreign markets. 9.1. In support of her submission, learned counsel places reliance on the following judgment of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court: Repro India Ltd. V. Union of India 2009 (235) E.L.T. 614 (Bom.). 10. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 11. The facts, as narrated above, are not in dispute. Therefore, what is required to be analysed, in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in sub-rule (2). Sub-rule (2) is not relevant for the purposes of this case. 12.1. In so far as sub-rule (6) of Rule 6 is concerned, it clearly states that provisions of sub-rule (1), (2), (3) and (4) shall not be applicable, in case of excisable goods, are removed without payment of duty, interalia, under circumstance adverted to in clause (v). In other words, in a situation where goods are cleared for export, under bond, in terms of the provisions of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. 12.2. There is no dispute that, in the instant case, as indicated above, the Assessee's goods were cleared for export, albeit under bond. 12.3. Therefore, the question, which arises is, would sub-rule (6) of Rule (6) of the 2004 Rules, would trump in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
