9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 503X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellant(s) Sh. Satyapal, AR for the Respondent(s) ORDER Per : Devender Singh The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant filed a refund claim of ₹ 5,99,586/- under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 vide their application dt. 07.02.2007 on account of unutilized Cenvat Credit of Service Tax paid on the input services used in the manufacture of the final products, which were cleared for export. The appellant has claimed this refund of credit, which had accumulated during the period from January to March, 2006. The department took the view that the refund of service tax credit taken on input services used in the manufacturing of the goods, which wer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e any input service is used in the final products which is cleared for export under bond or letter of undertaking, as the case may be, or used in the intermediate products cleared for export, or used in providing output service which is exported, the Cenvat Credit in respect of the input or input service so used shall be allowed to be utilized by the manufacturer or provider of output service towards payment of duty of excise on any final products cleared for home consumption or for export on payment of duty or service tax on output service and where for any reason such adjustment is not possible, the manufacturer or the provider of output service shall be allowed refund of such amount subject to such safeguards, conditions and limitations, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w 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. The above judgment has also been followed by this Tribunal in the case of Matrix Clothing Private Ltd. Vs. CCE, Delhi-III - 2016 (44) STR 618 (Tri. Chand.). 7. Following the above judgments of the Tribunal, I hold that the substantive benefit which has been allowed under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 cannot be denied to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
