9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 945X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lculating the limitation of one year for filing the refund claims as provided u/s 11B of CEA and not the ‘conditions of quarter or months’ given in N/N. 5/2006 - reliance placed in the case of M/s. Reliance Chemotex Industries Ltd. Versus C.C.E. Jaipur-II [2015 (6) TMI 1015 - CESTAT NEW DELHI], where it was held that refund cannot be rejected on the ground that goods exported are not related to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ect of amount of duty paid on inputs used in the manufacture of goods i.e. yarn exported by them under a letter of undertaking (UT-I) during the month of July 2008 to September, 2008. (ii) Revenue s reason for rejection of refund is that the goods were exported in the month of October and not during the quarter from July 2008 to Sept. 2008, which is the period for which refund has been claimed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lant. 4.1 The appellant has also submitted that date of export of goods is relevant for calculating the limitation of one year for filing the refund claims as provided under Section 11B of Central Excise Act and not the conditions of quarter or months given in Notification No. 5/2006 (supra). The appellant in support has referred to the Tribunal s decisions in the cases of Reliance Chemotex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4, 5 or 6 are not satisfied. Since as per the provisions of the notification, the refund of unutilised Cenvat credit is admissible in respect of - inputs or input services used in manufacture of final products, which are cleared for export under bond or letter of undertaking , I am, prima facie, of the view that when refund claim has been filed in respect of the 70 consignments cleared for expor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
