TMI Blog2011 (3) TMI 1108X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h Notification No.5/2006 as amended makes it very clear that there is no requirement for co-relation between the inputs used and the goods exported - If that be so, the question of restricting the refund claim to the extent of input services used / consumed during the month / quarter seems to be mis-placed - At the same time, find that as per the condition No.5 of the Notification No.5/2006, the calculation which has been worked out by the Commissioner(Appeals) in the impugned order, if is correct, then the refund is liable to be sanctioned to the respondent/assessee - Decided in favour of assessee. - E/895/10 - 294/2011 - Dated:- 28-3-2011 - Hon ble Mr. M.V.Ravindran, Member(Judicial) Hon ble Mr. P.Karthikeyan, Member(Technical) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... :- a. Ld. Commissioner(Appeals) has erred in sanctioning the refund of Rs.94,860/- relying upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Model Buckets Attachments (P) Ltd. Vs. CCE, Belgaum [2007(217) ELT 264 (Tri. Bang.)] as in this case, there was no proof of export which was submitted before the Department. It is his submission that in the present case, there was only Sworn-Affidavit given by the merchant exporter to record that the goods under the said ARE-1 returns were exported and no other evidence was given. It is his submission that such exports through merchant exporters are not eligible for refund as per para 8.3 of the Board s supplementary instructions. It is his submission that ld. Commissioner(Appeals) has erred in f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /.02/2010 issued from the office of the CCE, Pune-III indicating that the ARE-1s and shipping bill have been accepted as proof of export. It is his submission that as regards the refund of an amount of Rs.49,510/-, it was pertaining to the service tax credit availed by the appellant and not on inputs and the ld. Commissioner(Appeals) has correctly followed the provisions of condition No.5 of appendix to Notification No.5/2006 which talks about refund of unutilised input service tax credit. It is his submission that the refund was correctly allowed based upon such an appendix. 6. On careful consideration of the submissions made by both sides, we find that the issue regarding the refund of an amount of Rs.94,860/- for non-submission of pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es used / consumed during the month / quarter seems to be mis-placed. At the same time, we find that as per the condition No.5 of the Notification No.5/2006, the calculation which has been worked out by the ld. Commissioner(Appeals) in the impugned order, if is correct, then the refund is liable to be sanctioned to the respondent/assessee. We find that there is no infirmity in the order of the ld. Commissioner(Appeals) in this regard also. 9. In view of the foregoing, we hold that the impugned order recorded by the ld. Commissioner(Appeals) is correct and appeal filed by the Revenue is liable to be rejected and we do so. The appeal is rejected. (Operative portion of this order pronounced on conclusion of the hearing) - - TaxTMI - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
