Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2018 (12) TMI 341

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... in clearing excisable goods however the controversy is whether the goods i.e. gems and jewellery were fully exempted or not. Under Central Excise, “exemption” means exemption by Notification No. under Section 5A of Central Excise Act, 1944 thus goods exported under bonds are not exempted from duty. A conjoint reading of this Circular with the above requirements of Rule 5 makes it clear that a manufacturer who clears a final product or an intermediate product for export without payment of duty under bond or letter of undertaking which is exported without payment of service tax shall not be an exempted goods and as such shall be allowed refund of cenvat credit in view of Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules - Notification No. 12 of 17.03.2012 is .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... otification No. 27/2012-CE dated 18.06.2012 in respect of the cenvat credit taken on the inputs services used in the manufacture of the finished goods which were subsequently exported by the appellant. The Department on scrutinizing of refund claim documents found that the appellant is engaged in manufacture of an excisable goods i.e. gems and jewellery falling under Chapter 71 of the first Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and cleared the same for DTA as well as exported the goods out of the country. However, the goods being exempted under Notification No. 12 of 17.03.2012, the appellant is denied eligibility to avail cenvat credit on input services due to being exclusively used for exempted goods as per Rule 6(1) of CCR, 200 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ta, Ld. DR for the Department. 4. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that the refund claim was filed of accumulated cenvat on inputs/ input services used for export under Rule 5 of CCR, 2004 read with Notification No. 27 dated 18.06.2012. The Department while rejecting the claim has wrongly considered the goods of the appellant as being excisable goods and that the appellant was not registered as the manufacturer thereof. Rule 6(1) and Rule 7 of CCR, 2004 has also wrongly been applied while rejecting the Appeal. 4.1 It is further submitted that being a manufacturer the services in question filed by appellant are eligible to be the input services for the purpose of cenvat credit availment and such credit can be utilized for pay .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... , 2004 and Notification No. 27 dated 18.06.2012 in respect of the cenvat credit taken by them on the input services used in manufacture of finished goods which were subsequently exported by them. The 3 of the refund claims have been rejected mainly on the ground that the goods of appellant are excisable however exempted from Central Excise duty vide Notification No. 12 dated 17.03.2012 and they were not registered as manufacturer of excisable goods with Central Excise Department. Due to the same reason the credit of the service tax attributable to service used in one unit was denied to be distributed. Since the refund claim was filed under Rule 5 of CCR it is observed that following 4 conditions are required to be fulfilled:- (i) One man .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Textile Mills 2000 (122) ELT 115. Notification No. 12 of 17.03.2012 is therefore not applicable in the case of export of excisable goods. 8. Now coming to the allegation of the appellant not being registered for manufacture of excisable goods, I observe that Rule 3 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 prescribes that cenvat credit can be taken by a manufacturer or a provider of due to service and that there is no requirement of the registration at all. This Tribunal in the case of Wipro BPO Solutions Limited Vs. CST 2012 (34) STT 190 has held that refund of service tax paid on input services were exported. 9. The finding of the Commissioner(Appeals) mandating the registration are therefore not sustainable. Otherwise also it is admitted fa .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates