9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 970X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vice credit and where such input service credit or input credit cannot be utilized, then the same can be given as refund. So, there is indeed a provision. Just because the notification has not been issued at that time; we cannot deny the benefit provided in the Rule. It is also seen that the Board Circular No. 702/18/2003-CX dated 13.03.2003 also supports the view that the refund being a substantive right may not be denied merely because a notification prescribing the procedure for claiming was issued subsequently. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/811, 812, 813/2008 - A/61672-61674/2016SM[BR] - Dated:- 22-11-2016 - Mr. Devender Singh, Member (Technical) Shri Rakesh Bhola, Advocate for the Appellant(s) S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also referred to Circular No. 702/18/2003-CX dated 13.03.2003. In support of his claim, he invited attention to para 3 of the Circular, where it is mentioned that: Thus, refund being a substantive right, may not be denied merely because a notification prescribing the procedure for claiming the refund was issued later i.e. 01.03.2002. He further relied upon the Tribunal s judgment in the case of Fibres Fabrics International P. Ltd. Vs. C.C.(A), Bangalore - 2009 (14) S.T.R. 809 (Tri.- Bang.) and invited attention to para 9 of the said judgment. 4. Ld. A.R. for the Revenue reiterated the findings in the order of Commissioner (Appeals) and stated that the Notification cannot be retrospectively applied. He also stated that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... laws cited by the ld. Advocate point out that the notification dt. 14.03.2006, would be applicable even to the period prior to it in view of the rule position, Rule 5 as it existed there. In these circumstances, we do not find any merit in the impugned order. Moreover, the Commissioner himself in an earlier order had taken a different view and that order has not been appealed against. The same has reached finality. In these circumstances, the impugned order has no merits, the same is set aside. We allow the appeals with consequential relief. It is also seen that the Board Circular dt. 1.03.2003 (supra) also supports the view that the refund being a substantive right may not be denied merely because a notification prescribing the procedu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
