2021 (5) TMI 15

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rairaj, Authorized Representative for the Respondent ORDER The above appeals have been filed by the appellant aggrieved by the rejection of refund claim filed under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. 2. On behalf of the appellant, the learned counsel Shri N. Viswanathan appeared and argued the matter. He referred to the table in para 1 of the impugned order and submitted that in the above six .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Union of India reported in 2005 (184) E.L.T.240 (Guj.) and in the case of Sudha Ramachandran Vs Union of India reported in 2011 (24) S.T.R.175 (Ker.). 3. The issue in Appeal No.ST/41298/2019 is with regard to non-compliance 2(g) of Notification No.07/2012-CE(NT), dated 18.06.2012. As per this clause, balance in Cenvat account should be below the claim for quarter. The appellant has to debit in t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... mitted is the relevant date that has to be reckoned for computing the limitation of one year. The decisions placed by the learned counsel also have held that the date of re-submission cannot be taken for computing the limitation. When computed in such a manner, all these refund claims are well within time. The finding in the impugned order that these refund claims are time-barred is, therefore, se .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X