9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 1710X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... They are also holders of Central Excise Registration. They are manufacturers and exporters of 'Readymade Garments' falling under Chapter 62 of the CETA, 1985. They are availing CENVAT credit under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 (CCR, for short). They had filed a refund claim for Rs. 22,40,250/-, under Notification No.05/2006CE(NT) dt. 14/03/2006, which was supposedly the accumulated CENVAT credit of service tax paid during the period April 2011 to September 2011 on input service said to have been used for manufacture and export of final products. The jurisdictional Range Officer verified the claim and found that the appellants were not eligible for refund. Subsequently, show-cause notice dt. 06/01/2012 was issued proposing rejection of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the renting of immovable property service has been used in relation to manufacture of exported goods and in terms qualify as input service as defined in Rule 2(l) of CENVAT Credit Rules. In respect of this submission, he relied upon the following decisions:- i. Indian Additives Ltd. Vs. CCE [2016(45) STR 154 (Tri. Chennai)] ii. Alliance Global Services IT India (P) Ltd. Vs. CCE & ST, Hyderabad [2016(44) STR 113 (Tri. Hyd.)] 4.2. Second submission of the learned counsel is that there is no bar under the said notification to file one refund claim for more than one quarter. In support of this submission, he relied upon the decision in the case of CCE & C, Nagpur-I Vs. Fabrimax Egineering Pvt. Ltd. [2016(344) ELT 920 (Tri. Mumbai)]. 4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is a mandatory condition that there has to be export during the quarter for which the refund is claimed whereas in this case, there is no export turn over during the said quarter and subsequently also there is no possibility of export because the unit has been debonded. He further submitted that the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant are clearly distinguishable because in those cases there was no export during the particular quarter but subsequently there was an export which satisfies the conditions of the notification. But in the present case, there is no export during the said quarter when refund of CENVAT credit was claimed. Learned AR referred to a clarification issued by the Board dt. 19/01/2010 wherein the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ervices domestically, the proportional refund to such extent can be demanded from him. 6. Since in the present case it is an admitted fact that the export has not happened during the quarter for which the refund has been claimed in view of the Board clarification, I am of the view that the appellant has not complied with the conditions of the said Notification No.5/2006 dt. 14/03/2006. Therefore he is not entitled to the refund. Coming to the objection of renting of immovable property not an input service, I hold that renting of immovable property is an input service in view of the decisions relied upon by the appellant cited supra and I am also of the view that there is no bar for the appellant to file refund claim for more than one ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
