9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 201X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... show-cause notice - time limitation - HELD THAT:- The rejection on the ground that the claim for rebate could not be considered afresh under Notification No. 5/2006 ibid. as submitted by the learned Senior Advocate, has already been addressed to in the appellant s own case. It is found that for an earlier period, vide Order-in-Original No. 81/2008 dated 07/07/2008 the adjudicating authority himself had allowed the appellant s similar claim under Notification No. 5/2006 ibid. when the initial application was under Notification 12/2005 ibid. and the adjudicating authority had granted partial refund. The matter had travelled up to the Tribunal and this Bench of the Tribunal vide its Final Order 21260/2016 dated 16/07/2014 had affirmed the abov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vices availed by them for the services exported for the above periods. A show-cause notice dated 27/05/2008 was issued inter alia proposing to reject appellant's claim for rebate to which the appellant filed its detailed reply. But, however not satisfied, the adjudicating authority vide Order-in-Original No. 131/2008 dated 04/09/2008 rejected the entire claim for rebate for the reasons that the appellant's claim was time-barred; that some of the services on which cenvat credit was claimed did not have nexus with the output services exported; that no declaration as required under Notification 12/2005 ibid. was filed and that request for considering the claim under Notification No. 5/2006-CE (NT) dated 14/03/2006 was beyond the scope of show- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... authority. The order of that Bench has become final without there being any further appeal. It is thus clear that when the Revenue has itself granted relief which was thereafter approved by a higher appellate authority, Revenue cannot take different stands for different years, which would amount to inconsistency. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Birla Corporation Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise reported in 2005 (186) E.L.T. 266 (S.C) has held that the Revenue could not be permitted to take different stands, in the following words: "5. In the instant case the same question arises for consideration and the facts are almost identical. We cannot permit the Revenue to take a different stand in this case. The earlier appeal involving ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
