9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 970X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s Anand NVH Products Pvt. Ltd. have filed this appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. 07-09/KKG/GGN/2008 dated 08.01.2008 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Delhi-III, Gurgaon. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellants are 100% EOU and are engaged in manufacture of Rubber & Rubber Metal Bonded Parts. They filed three refund claims vide applications dated 30.01.2006, 30.05. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3. Ld. Advocate for the appellants submits that even though there was no Notification at the time of filing refund claims, there was a provision in law under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 to allow refunds. He 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the procedure for the same had not been notified. I find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected the refund claim on the ground that the Notification dated 14.03.2006, which laid down the procedure for obtaining refund claim of input services did not have retrospective effect and there was no express provision in Notification No. 11/2002-CE(NT) dt. 01.03.2002 under which refund of unutilized ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it provided in the Rule. Moreover, all the case-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 o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
