TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 113X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble to nil duty, is eligible to avail CENVAT credit paid on the inputs under the exception clause to Rule 6(1), as contained in Rule 6(5) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002 and Rule 6(6) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, used in the manufacture of such goods, if the goods are exported. By respectfully following the ratio as laid down by Hon ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla and also observing that the appeal filed by the Revenue against the decision of the Hon ble High Court has been dismissed by Hon ble Supreme Court in COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHANDIGARH VERSUS M/S DRISH SHOES LTD. [ 2016 (7) TMI 1415 - SC ORDER] , the impugned order is set aside. The Appeal filed by the Appellant is allowed. - MR. P.K. CHOUDHARY, MEMBE ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in view of judgments of Hon ble High Court in the case of Punjab Stainless Steel (Delhi) and Drish Shoes (HP), if fully exempted excisable goods are exported under bond, LUT provisions of sub rule (1), (2) and (3) shall not be applicable and Cenvat would not be liable to be reversed. However, if final product is cleared for home consumption, Cenvat would not be admissible and remanded the matter for ascertainment of the exports. 4. Consequent upon remand, Appellant filed fresh defence reply dated 16.02.2016 and contended that out of total quantity under dispute, 3250 Kgs have been cleared for home consumption, while remaining quantity have been exported. Relevant invoices ER-1 and export documents were produced. Appellant also paid an a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bond or LUT, still the benefit of Rule 6(6) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 cannot be denied. 7. Learned counsel has relied upon the following judgments in support of his submissions :- (i) Repro India Ltd Vs Union of India 2009 (235) ELT 614 (HC-Bom) (Para-9) (ii) Union of India Vs Sharp Menthol India Ltd., reported in 2011(270) E.L.T. 212 (Bom.) (iii) SLP filed by UOI against this order of Hon'ble High Court of Bombay was dismissed by Hon'ble Supreme Court by order dated 04.04.2012. (iv) Commissioner of Central Excise Vs Drish Shoes Ltd., reported in 2010(254) E.L.T. 417 (H.P.) (v) SLP filed by Revenue against this order of Hon'ble High Court of HP has been dismissed by Hon'ble Supreme Court 2018 (36) E ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ove, shows that CENVAT credit/refund is allowed on the inputs of all manufactured goods which are not exempt from duty, as is clear from a combined reading of Rule 3 and sub-rule (1) of Rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002, as also the Rules of 2004, so as to avoid indirect double taxation on inputs. However, this rule is not absolute. It is subject to exception clause, contained in Rule 6(5) of the Rules of 2002 and 6(6) of the Rules of 2004, and one of the exceptions is in respect of excisable goods, which are cleared for export under bond in terms of the provisions of Central Excise Rules, 2002. 17 . Sub-rule (5) of Rule 6 of the Rules of 2002 was applicable only in case of exempted goods. That meant that the exception was not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . As regards question No. 2, it is clear from a bare reading of Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 that a manufacturer, who exports the final products which are exempt from duty, can claim refund of CENVAT. So, this question is also answered against the appellant. 22 . view of the aforesaid answers to the questions of law, appeal is dismissed. 11. By respectfully following the ratio as laid down by Hon ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla and also observing that the appeal filed by the Revenue against the decision of the Hon ble High Court has been dismissed by Hon ble Supreme Court reported as 2018 (36) ELT A-191 (S.C.), the impugned order is set aside. 12. In view of the above discussions the Appeal filed by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
