TMI Blog2014 (5) TMI 682X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... person claiming refund is bound to prove that a particular quantity of inputs/ input services involving CENVAT Credit have gone into the production of exported goods - on the basis of these documents Revenue cannot ascertain that particular quantities of various inputs/ input services involving particular amount of various duties/tax have been used in the export goods - at page 29 of the appeal papers, there is a detail of various duties involved in the refund claim of ₹ 4,74,415/-, but the supporting Annexures ‘A’, A1, and A2 are not there. Similarly, there are no such details on record before this bench in respect of refund claim - Decided against assessee. - Appeal No. : E/612/2012, E/613/2012 - ORDER No. A/10944-10945/2014 - Da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 296) ELT 426 (Tri. Del.)]; (ii) Elcomponics Sales Private Limited vs. Commissioner of Central Excise Noida - [2012 (279) ELT 280 (Tri. Del.)]; (iii) Commissioner of Central Excise Ahmedabad vs. Rangdhara Polymers - [2011 (264) ELT 275 (Tri. Ahmd.)]; (iv) Global Energy Food Industries vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad - [2010 (262) ELT 627 (Tri. Ahmd.); and (v) M. Portal (I) Wireless Solutions (P) Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Bangalore [2013 (30) STR 305 (Tri. Bang.)] 4. On the other hand Shri Alok Srivastava, Learned A.R. argued during the course of hearing and written submissions that the appellant had not supplied any documents or details to verify their eligibility to the refund claims. That the lower ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e notification issued under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules but no time limit is applicable to such refund claims. Learned A.R. relied upon the judgment of Madras High in the case of CCE, Coimbatore vs. GTN Engineering (I) Limited [2012 (28) STR 426 (Mad.)] which was delivered specifically with respect to refund claims under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. While delivering this judgment the Hon'ble Madras High Court has discussed the judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court judgment in the case of STI India Limited (supra), and passed the following observations in Para 17 and 18, reproduced below:- 17. The learned counsel would also rely upon a Judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court at Indore reported in 2009 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f CENVAT credit taken on inputs/ input services used in the manufacture of export goods is only to be made. Therefore, the person claiming refund is bound to prove that a particular quantity of inputs/ input services involving CENVAT Credit have gone into the production of exported goods. As per Para 5 of the Show Cause Notice dated 21.10.2011, the appellants submitted the following documents with the refund claim for Rs. 4, 74,415/-: (1) Claim letter in Form A , (2) Copy of relevant shipping bill, (3) ER-1 (April, 2009 to June, 2009), (4) Copy of Bill of Lading, and (5) CENVAT invoices. I find that on the basis of these documents Revenue cannot ascertain that particular quantities of various inputs/ input services ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
