9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 949X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed beyond the period of one year - Held that:- Tribunal has clearly held that the date of receipt of consideration is relevant for calculating relevant date and the limitation would be applicable as per the provisions of Section 11B and when these two principles are applied to the present case, the appellant would be eligible for refund in respect of the amounts received after 18-11-2007. Accordin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... output services since they cannot utilize Cenvat credit taken by them under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 read with Notification No. 5/2006-C.E. (N.T.). 2. The issue before me is whether the lower authorities were correct in rejecting the refund claim on the ground that the same was filed beyond the period of one year. In this case, the refund claim was filed on 19-11-2008. 3. The learn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the services rendered from 1st September onwards consideration was received only from end November 2007. Further he would also submit that while learned Commissioner (Appeals) has recorded his findings that the appellant would be eligible for refund in respect of the amounts received subsequent to 17-11-2007 in the order portion, he has given the date as 16-5-2008 and this also requires to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e input services used after 16-5-2008 which clearly appears to be a typographical error. The learned CA would submit that the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) has been implemented and the refund claims prior to 16-5-2008 has been sanctioned. 6. In the Interim Order in the case of Apotex Others referred to above, this Tribunal has clearly held that the date of receipt of consideration is re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
