1. The relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Soya Oil exempted under Notification No. 3/2006, dated 1-3-2006 and De-Oiled Cake chargeable to nil rate of duty. The appellants has been exporting De-Oiled Cake under Bond. The appellants filed refund claim of Rs. 2,80,053.58 of Cenvat credit on input service i.e. GTA service, Insurance, Brokerage service, and Travel Agency service under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The original authority rejected the refund claim, which is upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals).

2. Learned Advocate on behalf of the appellants submits that the goods were cleared under bond and there is no dispute that the goods were exported and, therefore, unutilized credit would be refunded under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. He submits that on the identical situation the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Repro India Ltd. v. UOI & Anrs., reported in 2009 (235) E.L.T. 614 (Bom.) = 2008 (88) RLT 481 (Bom.) allowed the refund of unutilized Cenvat credit even on exempted goods or goods chargeable to nil rate of duty, exported under bond. He also relied upon the decision of Division Bench of the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Chandigarh v. Drish Shoes Ltd., reported in 2009 (90) RLT 686 (CESTAT-Del.). He further submits that Singly Member Bench of the Tribunal on the identical issue in the case of Punjab Stainless Steel Industries v. CCE, Delhi-I, reported in 2008 (226) E.L.T. 587 (Tri. - Del.) allowed refund claim, which was upheld by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, as reported in the case of CCE, Delhi-I v. Punjab Stainless Steel - 2009 (234) E.L.T. 605 (Del.).

3. Learned DR on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals). He submits that Commissioner (Appeals) in detail discussed the change of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 and Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, whereby refund of unutilized credit under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 was restricted. He also submits that the case law relied upon by the learned Advocate in the case of Repro India would not apply in the present case. It is his contention that in the case of Repro India (supra) the assessee was manufacturing dutiable and exempted goods but, in the present case the appellants are manufacturing only exempted goods.

4. After hearing both sides and on perusal of the records, I find that the appellants exported De-oiled Cake which is chargeable to nil rate of duty. The main contention of the Revenue is that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of only exempted goods and, therefore, Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 would not apply. Learned SDR contended that Rule 5 of the Rules would apply in the context of manufacture of dutiable and exempted goods. I find that this issue has already been decided by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Repro India Ltd. (supra). In the said case the assessee was engaged in the manufacture of printed books which was chargeable to nil rate of duty. The assessee exported printed books entirely and claimed refund of unutilized credit under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules was allowed. The findings of the Hon’ble High Court are reproduced below :-

"Even though Rule 6(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 provides that no Cenvat credit will be available in respect of the inputs used in the manufacture of exempted products, Rule 6(6)(v) of the Cenvat Credit Rules creates an exemption inter alia in respect of the excisable goods removed without payment of duty for export under bond in terms of Central Excise Rules, 2004 the petitioners are entitled to avail Cenvat Credit in respect of the inputs used in the manufacture of final product being exported irrespective of the fact that the final products are otherwise exempt."

5. Commissioner (Appeals) observed that Rule 6(6) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 indicates the words "exempted goods", which was changed in Rule 6(6) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 with the word "goods removed