TMI Blog2019 (10) TMI 168X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - 4-10-2019 - DR. SUVENDU KUMAR PATI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Shri R.V. Shetty, Advocate for the Appellant Shri Anil Choudhary, Dy. Commissioner, Authorised Representative for the Respondent ORDER Denial of CENVAT credit on bought out items exported under bond by the adjudicating authority that was confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) is impugned in this appeal. 2. Case of the appellant in brief is that it is registered with Central Excise and exported chemical falling under Chapter 28 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 on 23.05.2014. It had availed CENVAT credit of ₹ 1,22,055/- against export of bought out items Nubifer under bond without payment of duty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as such, CENVAT credit is also available to the assessee. Placing reliance on the decision of CESTAT, Principal Bench, New Delhi in the case of S. Kumar Nationwide Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore reported in 2014 (312) ELT 725 (Tri.-Del.), he also argued that finished goods bought to factory and exported on payment of duty, without undertaking any process, also eligible for credit and CBEC Circular No. 283/117/96-CX has clarified that export of inputs without payment of duty but under bond were treated as final products by virtue of deemed manufacture clause under Sub Rule 12 of Rule 57F(1)(ii) which covered all such cases within the ambit of proviso to Rule 57F(4) of the Central Excise Rules since export under claim of r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cts since CT 1 copy was submitted within 24 hours of such export and proof of export was received from the Merchant exporter by the Range Officer. In his order, learned Commissioner (Appeals) had rejected the appeal primarily on the ground that appellant was unable to establish cogently that the bought out items which were exported had undergone any manufacturing process at their end. Second ground of rejection of the claim of the appellant by the Commissioner (Appeals) was that CBEC Circular No. 283/117/96-CX dated 31.12.1996 pertain to inputs cleared as such and had no bearing in this case as in the present case, the issue was of clearance of finished goods as such. Last reason cited by him to reject the appeal is that comparison of expor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in small packets of 25 Kg. each. Be that as it may, Rule 16 of Central Excise Rules also permits removal of goods for any other reason on which duty has been paid at the time of removal but for export since such removal is permissible under bond, appellant is entitled to avail CENVAT credit on the duty paid on such inputs. Hence, in carrying forward the judicial precedent set by the Tribunal in S. Kumar Nationwide Ltd. (supra), the following order is passed. 6. The appeal is allowed and the order passed by the Commissioner of CGST Central Excise (Appeals), Bhiwandi vide Order-in-Appeal No. SM/CGST CX/Bhiwandi/88/17-18 dated 13.04.2018 is hereby set aside. (Order pronounced in the open court on 04.10.2019) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
