9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 520X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h period October, 2010 to March, 2011 instead of application for each calendar month in view of Clause 2(b) of N/N. 5/2006-CE-(NT)? - Held that: - the word ‘may’ in Clause 2(b) of the said notification is by way of giving an option to assessee to file refund claims on monthly basis. Being an EOU by way of facilitation, it does not put any embargo debarring the assessee for making a quarterly/half ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icles made of plastic and are licensed as the EOU. They are also registered under the provisions of Central Excise Act and the Rules. The appellant by application dated 08/07/2011 filed refund claim for the two quarter by common application for the period October, 2010 to March, 2011 for ₹ 1,22,647/-. The said refund claim was adjudicated by the Dy. Commissioner vide Order-in-Original dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. Mr. Manish Jani, General Manager (Finance & Accounts) of M/s Allied Instruments Pvt. Ltd. appearing for the appellant-assessee urges that the word 'may' has been erroneously read as 'shall' and/or mandatory by the learned Commissioner. The intent of the legislature is to provide a facility particularly to the EOU units, unlike the D.T.A. units who ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to avoid multiplicity of refund claim. It was also held, it does not mean that an assessee has to filed refund claim only quarterly/monthly and refund claim could not be rejected on that ground. It was also held that filing of refund once a year would also avoid multiplicity of refund claims. Accordingly the said issue was decided in favour of the assessee. 5. Heard learned AR for Revenue who hav ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
