TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 219X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssioner (Appeals) has relied upon various decisions which have consistently held that the assessee is entitled to avail credit of service tax paid on input services when they are producing exempted excisable goods which are chargeable to ‘nil’ rate of duty. The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs Vs. ANZ International [2008 (6) TMI 155 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] has held that the provisions of Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules are not applicable when the goods are exported under bond. There is no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) based on the decision of the High Court - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - ST/296/2009-DB ST/Cross Objection No. 81/2009-DB - Final ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... credit. After following the due process, the Assistant Commissioner vide order dated 22.02.2008 rejected the entire refund claim on the ground that the respondents were not eligible to avail the cenvat credit on the input services in the first place in view of the bar contained in Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules. Aggrieved by the said order, respondent filed appeal before the Commissioner and the Commissioner (Appeals) vide the impugned order held that in view of the statutory provisions as well as ratios of various judicial decisions, the respondents were eligible to avail credit of service tax paid on input services when they were producing exempted excisable goods which were chargeable to nil rate of duty. Aggrieved by the said order, R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... exported by the respondents were chargeable to nil rate of duty therefore there was no requirement for them to have furnished bond or Letter of Undertaking. In support of his submission, he relied upon the following decisions: a) CC, Bangalore Vs. ANZ International 2009 (233) E.L.T. 40 (Kar.) b) Commissioner V. ANZ International 2009 (240) E.L.T. A16 (S.C) c) Final Order No. 22062/2017 dated 18.09.2017 passed by the CESTAT d) Punjab Stainless Steel Industries Vs. CCE, Delhi-l 2008 (226) E.L.T. 587 (Tri.-Del.) e) CCE, Delhi l Vs. Punjab Stainless Steel 2009 (234) E.L.T. 605 (Del.) f) Jolly Board Ltd. Vs. CCE, Aurangabad 2017 (49) S.T.R. 620 (Tri.-Mumbai) g) CCE Cus. Aurangabad Vs. Jolly Board Ltd. 2017 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nual of instruction provides for input stage rebate on both excisable and non-excisable goods, a manufacturer is entitled to avail cenvat credit on inputs both for exported goods whether dutiable or exempted. The said decision of the CESTAT has been upheld by the High Court of Delhi reported in 2009 (234) E.L.T. 605. Further we find that in the case of Jolly Board Ltd. Vs. CCE, cited supra wherein it has been held that cenvat credit is admissible in terms of Rule 6(6) when goods are exported and there is no requirement to execute any bond if the exported goods are exempted. The said decision of the CESTAT has been affirmed by the Hon ble High Court of judicature at Bombay reported vide 2017 (50) S.T.R. 131 (Bom.). Therefore, by following th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
