9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (12) TMI 793X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... As the appellant has exported the output service the principle of unjust enrichment does not apply - remand the case back to the original adjudicating authority to examine the claim with respect to the time-limit involved and if the refund claim is in time, to sanction it - in favour of assessee by way of remand. - ST/538/2012 - A/165/12/SMB/C-IV - Dated:- 30-8-2012 - P.R. Chandrasekharan, J. Appellant Rep by: Shri Bharat Raichandani, Adv. Respondent Rep by: Shri M S Reddy, Dy. Commissioner (AR) Per: P R Chandrasekharan: The appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal No. PIII/RS/183/2012 dated 29.05.2012 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals-III), Pune. 2. The facts relevant to the case are as follow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fication issued there under are not applicable to the appellant and hence the appellants are not eligible for the refund. Accordingly, he dismissed their appeal. 2.3 Hence the appellant is before me. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that nowhere in Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules it is stated that a unit in the SEZ cannot apply for refund under the provisions of the said Rules. Similarly, Notification 5/2006-CE(N.T) dated 14.03.2006 also does not debar a unit in the SEZ from filing a refund claim as per the procedure prescribed under the said notification. He also relies on the Board's Circular no. 105/8/2008 dated 16.09.2008 wherein the Board has clarified that respective jurisdictional authorities administering servi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the bar of unjust enrichment does not apply. In the instant case, as the appellant has exported the output service, hence the principle of unjust enrichment does not apply. Therefore, the only point that needs to be seen is whether the appellant has made the refund claim within a period of one year from the date of payment of duty and in respect of such duties, he would be rightly entitled for the benefit of refund under section 11B of the Act itself. 6. In view of the above position I set aside the impugned order and remand the case back to the original adjudicating authority to examine the claim of the appellant with respect to the time-limit involved and if the refund claim is in time, to sanction the refund in accordance with law. 7 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
