9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 883X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... herein the refund claim filed under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 was denied as time barred and on the ground that the parking charges paid by the appellant have no nexus with the output service. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant filed refund claim online within time but physically the refund claim was filed after one year of the date of export for refund of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... perusal of the records, it is found that the matter is listed for several times before the bench but on all the occasions none appeared on behalf of the appellant nor any request for adjournment has been received. On the last date of hearing, the appellant was given the last chance to appear before this Tribunal but today, the appellant failed to appear before this Tribunal. Therefore, the appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the refund claim online within time and as all the documents could not be filed by the appellant online, therefore, the appellant filed physically refund claim although after one year. In that circumstance, it cannot be said that the appellant has not filed refund claim in time. The date of filing of the refund claims online should be taken into consideration to determine whether a particular refu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. At this time of filing the refund claim, the availment of cenvat credit cannot be challenged. Accordingly, I hold that the appellant is entitled for refund claim on parking charges as claimed. In result, I do not fine any merit in the impugned order for rejection of refund claim. Consequently, the impugned order is set aside qua rejecting the ref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
