Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2017 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (2) TMI 970 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH100% EOU - refund claim - rejection on the ground that the refund of service tax credit taken on input services used in the manufacturing of goods which are cleared for export under bond or letter of undertaking is admissible only w.e.f. 14.03.2006 when N/N. 05/2006-CE(NT) was issued - whether the refund claims of input service can be allowed u/r 5 of CCR, when the procedure for the same had not been notified? Held that: - all the refund claim pertains to period prior to 14-3-2006. However, as on 10-9-2004 itself, we have already given the reproduction of Rule 5, the rule itself provides the utilization of the input credit and input service credit and where such input service credit or input credit cannot be utilized, then the same can be given as refund. So, there is indeed a provision. Just because the notification has not been issued at that time; we cannot deny the benefit provided in the Rule. It is also seen that the Board Circular No. 702/18/2003-CX dated 13.03.2003 also supports the view that the refund being a substantive right may not be denied merely because a notification prescribing the procedure for claiming was issued subsequently. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|