TMI Blog2020 (10) TMI 157X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Central Excise duty no duty liability arises even if the same is cleared for domestic consumption. However, the appellant has cleared the said exempted goods for export outside India. The general provisions contained in Credit Rules provides that credit is not allowed to be claimed on inputs if the same is used in manufacture of exempted goods as would be clearly discernible on perusal of Sub-Rule (1) to (4) of Rule 6. However, Sub-Rule (6) of Rule 6 carves out an exception to provide that if the goods are cleared to SEZ or a 100% EOUs, EHTP, etc the restrictions contained in the said rules shall not apply, clearly implying that final products which have been exported would not be denied of the input credit benefit - Provision has also be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Excise Appeal No.77114 of 2019 - FINAL ORDER NO. 75417/2020 - Dated:- 5-10-2020 - SHRI P.K.CHOUDHARY, MEMBER(JUDICIAL) Shri Anjan Dasgupta, Advocate for the Appellant (s) Shri H.S.Abedin, Authorized Representative for the Respondent(s) ORDER The instant appeal has been filed by the appellant assessee, M/s. Eastern Chemofarb Ltd, against Order-in-Appeal dated 04.05.2018 passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals), Kolkata, upholding demand of Central Excise duty of ₹ 4,94,115.80 consequent to denial of Cenvat credit for the period from April 2011 to December 2011 vide Order dated 28.02.2013 passed by the learned Dy. Commissioner, Central Excise, Asansol. 2. The fac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efit of Rule 6(6) of the Credit Rules shall not be available to the appellant and hence, the appellant is not entitled to avail credit of duty paid on inputs used in the manufacture of exempted goods. Based on said observations, the instant demand has been raised by denying the credit availed by the appellant in the ER-1 returns filed by them. 3. Heard Shri Anjan Dasgupta, learned Advocate for the appellant and Shri H.S.Abedin, learned Authorized Representative for the Revenue. The learned Advocate, while pleading for their eligibility to avail credit, placed reliance on several case decisions including the following :- CCE vs. Drish Shoes Ltd. 2010 (254) ELT 417 (HP) affirmed by the Apex Court as reported in 2018 (360) ELT A191 (S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llowed to avail credit on inputs used in exported manufactured goods. 8. I find that subsequent amendment made in Notification No.42/2001 (Supra) to do away with the requirement of following the bond related procedure in case of goods which are otherwise chargeable to NIL rate of duty or wholly exempted is merely a procedure and has no relation whatsoever with the credit entitlement under Credit Rules. The disallowance of credit by both the authorities below in the instant case is not proper. 9. I also find that the issue has already been dealt by the Tribunal in the case of Jolly Board Ltd (supra) wherein the Bench after applying the ratio decidendi laid down by the various High Courts observed as below: 5. In this case the ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 7. The issue came up before the Hon ble High Court of Bombay in Repro India Ltd. (supra) wherein the Hon ble High Court held that CENVAT credit used in the manufacture of final product being exported irrespective of the fact that final product are otherwise exempted by provisions of Rule 6(6)(v) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 are applicable. Further, I find that in the case of Salzer Controls Ltd. - 2003 (160) E.L.T. 1169 and Paras Ship Breakers Ltd. this Tribunal has held that non-execution of bonds are only technical lapse. Further, in the case of Well Known Polyester Ltd. (supra) wherein the exempted goods were exported without bond or LUT by an assessee who was not even registered without bond or LUT by an assessee who was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
