9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (6) TMI 147X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /Shri M.V. Ravindran, Member (J) and K.K. Agarwal, Member (T) Shri Prakash Shah, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri Pramod Kumar, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per: K.K. Agarwal, Member (T)]. - The brief facts of the case are that M/s. Sandoz Private limited have filed refund claim of Rs. 43,28,000/- on 25-7-2006 under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 being the amount of Cenvat credit availed by them on the input services under Rule 3 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 which remained utilized on account of the exports clearances of their finished goods effected by them. Refund claim was filed under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002/2004 read with Notification No. 5/2006-CE (NT) dated 14-3-2006. The earlier Notifica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a period of twelve months. Show cause notice was adjudicated by the Assistant Commissioner who rejected refund claim and this order was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) also. 3. The learned Advocate for the appellants submits that claim has been denied by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that Notification No. 5/2006-CE (NT) dated 14-3-2006 is effective from the date of issue and will not have retrospective effect and therefore refund in respect of input service credit relating to export prior to 14-3-2006 could not have been sanctioned. It was submitted that this matter came up before the Tribunal in the case of WNS Global Services (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Mumbai wherein the Tribunal vide its Order No. A/49 to51/08/WZB/CSTB/C-I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ich aspect should be looked into as some claims appeared to be time barred. 5. We have considered the submissions. We find that the issue is squarely covered by the Tribunal decision in the case WNS Global Services (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Mumbai cited supra wherein it has been held that even if refunds are filed before amendment, and satisfies every requirement of Rule 5 and the notification issued thereunder, the refunds cannot be rejected as there was no condition in the notification or rules that such refund would apply only in respect of the exports made after 14-3-2006. We accordingly hold so. As regards the condition of filing of monthly refund, we agree with the appellants' contention that since the word used is "may", this has to b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
