2016 (1) TMI 290

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... AR) ORDER Per: P. K. Jain 1. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant has filed a refund claim under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, for the month of June, July, August, September, October and November 2003. Initially, the appellant filed the refund claim based upon the average credit on inputs taken for the manufacture of goods. On pointing out by the department, the appellant revised .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ner (Appeal) was also dismissed. 2. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the credit of duty on the inputs was higher than the duty leviable on the final products and therefore, it was not possible for them to utilise the credit available due to export of goods. It was further submitted that they have given ARE-1 wise the lot number and the input credit taken and for each ARE-1 they .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... therefore, direct that under the circumstances, the appellant will be entitled to get the refund of the unutilized credit of duty as inputs used in the goods exported under bond. As far as the second point is concerned, the learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that it is possible for them to give ARE-1 wise details of the input used and their corresponding invoices. It will therefore, be p .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X