TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 1350X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of service tax paid on input services when they are producing exempted excisable goods which are chargeable to nil rate of duty. Hon ble Karnataka High Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, BANGALORE VERSUS ANZ INTERNATIONAL [ 2008 (6) TMI 155 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] it has been held that the provisions of Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules are not applicable when the goods are exported under bond - The High Court judgment has been maintained by the Hon ble Supreme Court in COMMISSIONER VERSUS ANZ INTERNATIONAL [ 2009 (3) TMI 999 - SC ORDER]. There is no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) based on the decision of the Tribunal and the High Court - refund allowed - appeal dismissed - decided agai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on No.4/2006-CE dt. 01/03/2006 and in terms of Rule 6(1) of CCR, they were barred from availing the CENVAT Credit. After following the due process, the original authority vide order dt. 21/02/2008 rejected the entire refund claim on the ground that the respondents were not eligible to avail the CENVAT credit on input services in the first place in view of the bar contained in Rule 6 of CCR. Aggrieved by the said order, appellant had filed the appeal before the Commissioner(Appeals) and the Commissioner(Appeals) held that in view of the statutory provision 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o.36/01-CE(NT) dt. 26/06/2001. He further submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly held that since the goods manufactured and exported by the respondents were chargeable to nil rate of duty, there was no requirement for them to furnish bond or Letter of Undertaking. In support of his submission, he relied upon the following decisions:- i. CC, Bangalore Vs. ANZ International 2009 (233) E.L.T. 40 (Kar.) ii. Commissioner V. ANZ International 2009 (240) E.L.T. A16 (S.C) iii. Final Order No. 22062/2017 dated 18.09.2017 passed by the CESTAT iv. Punjab Stainless Steel Industries Vs. CCE, Delhi-l 2008 (226) E.L.T. 587 (Tri.-Del.) v. CCE, Delhi l Vs. Punjab Stainle ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nil rate of duty. Further we find that the Hon ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs Vs. ANZ International cited supra it has been held that the provisions of Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules are not applicable when the goods are exported under bond. The High Court judgment has been maintained by the Hon ble Supreme Court and followed by the CESTAT, Bangalore in the Final Order No. 22062/2017 dated 18.09.2017 in the case of Commr. of Central Excise Vs. Vibhuthigudda Mines Pvt. Ltd. Further we find that the ratio of the CESTAT decision rendered in the case of Punjab Stainless Steel Industries Vs. CCE, Delhi-l 2008 (226) E.L.T. 587 (Tri.-Del.) is squarely applicable to the present case as the facts and circumstances ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
