2022 (6) TMI 101

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rised Representative for the respondent ORDER Heard the parties. 2. The issue involved in this appeal is whether the refund claim under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules read with Notification No. 27/2012-CE (NT) have been rightly rejected on the ground of limitation. 3. Brief facts of the case are that appellant is the exporter of software services. The appellant also received several input servi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ing correctness of refund, copies of invoices on which input credit has been taken, copies of cenvat credit register for the period April to September, 2016 and copy of the cancelled cheque for Bank account details. It is also mentioned in the defect memo that the refund claim filed is being returned here. The appellant had received only deficiency memo and found that the refund claim have not bee .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... admittedly on 04.09.2017. Thus, in the facts and circumstances, the original date of filing of refund claim is the date of filing for all purposes, and date of defect removed could not be substituted as the date of filing of refund claim. Accordingly, he prays for allowing the appeal. 7. Learned Authorised Representative appearing for the Revenue relies on the impugned order. 8. Having consider .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X