9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 1095X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No. 5/2006 (C.E.) N.T. dated 14.3.2006. - Held that:- It is clear from the notification No. 11/2002-CE (NT) dated 11.02.2002 that the requirement of showing the value of export clearances to be more than 50% is applicable only to a manufacturer/assessee who wants to file refund claim more than once in a quarter. The interpretation resorted by the authorities is to the effect that every manufactur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e also availing CENVAT Credit on the duty paid on inputs. In respect of clearances of goods exported, the appellants filed refund claim under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.The refund claim filed by the appellants was rejected on the ground that the average export clearance of final products of the appellant in the preceding quarter was less than 50% of the total clearance and did not sat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4. The notification No. 5/2006 provides for refund of CENVAT Credit subject to fulfillment of conditions set out in Appendix. The relevant conditions are as under: 1. The final product or the output service is exported in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Central Excise Rules, 2002, or the Export of Services Rules, 2005, as the case may be. 2. The claims for such refund ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cation. The condition stated in the notification regarding average export clearances has to be 50% or more is applicable only when the assessee wishes to file refund claim more than once for any quarter in a calendar year. There is no case that appellants have filed refund claim for a quarter more than once. Thus, the refund claim appears to have been rejected by placing a wrong interpretation by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s is to the effect that every manufacturer who files refund claim under Rule 5 has to necessarily show that his export clearances are 50% or more which is an incorrect interpretation. The refund has been denied on such incorrect interpretation of the notification. The appellants have established a case in their favour. 8. In view of the foregoing, the impugned order is not sustainable. The appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
