9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 918X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellant has failed to file such refund claims on quarterly basis - Held that:- The claims are allowed to be filed on a quarterly/monthly basis but this condition cannot be read to mean that refund will be payable only if the claims are filed on a quarterly/monthly basis. It is clearly in the nature of an option given to the assessee to file refund claims on a quarterly or monthly basis and failure to do so cannot be a ground for rejection of the refund claim. Refund allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - ST/180/2009 - FO/76881/2018 - Dated:- 31-10-2018 - Shri P. K. Choudhary, Judicial Member and Shri V. Padmanabhan, Member (Technical) Shri R.Dakshina Murthy, Advocate for the Appellant Shri S.Mukhopadhyay ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... atisfied for claiming the refund rules under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2005. In terms of the conditions specified in the above notification, the claim for such refund is to be filed on quarterly basis. Appellant has failed to do so. Both the refund claims were rejected by the original authority. Such rejection was also upheld in the impugned order which is challenged in the present appeal. 2. In this connection we heard Shri R.Dakshina Murthy, Advocate for the appellant and Shri S.Mukhopadhyay, Suptd.(AR) for the Revenue. 3. The submissions on behalf of the appellant are as follows: i) The show cause notices have alleged that the appellant has claimed the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 13/2006-ST dated 19.04.20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is an STPI Unit which is a 100% EOU and hence they were required to submit such claims once in a month which also has not been complied with.. 5. Heard both sides and perused the appeal records. 6. The refund claims have been filed for refund of unutilized cenvat credit under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules. As part of the refund claims, the appellant has submitted all necessary documents regarding the export of service and receipt of FIRCs. One of the grounds raised for rejection of refund claims by revenue is that the appellant has exported exempted services, but failed to observe the requirements specified in Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules. We note that neither in Rule 5 nor in Notification No.5/2006 ibid, there is any conditi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed is that the services which have been exported were not taxable during the relevant period. The Notification No. 5/2006-C.E. (N.T.), dated 14-3-2006 which has been issued under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 specifically allows refund of Cenvat credit availed on inputs or input services which have been used for providing output services which have been exported. There is no condition in the Notification which prescribes that the refund will be allowable only in cases where the output services exported is liable for payment of service tax. Hence we find that such a view taken by the authorities below is without any basis. In any case the Tribunal in the case of KPIT Cummins Infosystems Ltd. v. CCE reported in 2013 (32) S.T.R. 356 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
