9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (9) TMI 306X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t. ORDER 1. This appeal is filed against the Order-in-Appeal No. 17/2008-Cus. (B), dated 29-1-2008. 2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are that the appellant is an EOU engaged in the manufacture and export of granite slabs and tiles. They had filed a refund claim for Rs. 2,47,773 for the period January, 2005 to March, 2006 under rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 for refund ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es. He would submit that the lower authorities have denied the refund/benefit only on the ground that the said benefit is available only from 14-3-2006 by virtue of Notification No. 5/2006-CE (NT) and not for the period prior to it. He would draw my attention to the decision of this Bench in the case of Fibres & Fabrics International (P.) Ltd. v. CC [2009] 21 STT 151 (Bang. - CESTAT) and in the ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rds, conditions and limitations to be prescribed by a Notification. The Notification which was in vogue till 13-3-2006 covered only for the 'inputs' refund. There was no Notification for 'inputs services' credit refund till 14-3-2006. In other words, refund of input services credit was not granted by the Government till they issued the Notification on 14-3-2006. Therefore, in the absence of a spec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hich the credit has been availed, I am of the opinion that efforts can be made to segregate the input services based on the documents and grant the eligible credit to the appellants for the period 14-3-2006 to 31-3-2006, to which they are legally due." 5.1 I find that the above findings of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) are contrary to the decision of this Bench in an identical issue in the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or to it in view of the rule position, rule 5 as it existed there. In these circumstances, we do not find any merit in the impugned order. Moreover, the Commissioner himself in an earlier order had taken a different view and that order has not been appealed against. The same has reached finality. In these circumstances, the impugned order has no merits, the same is set aside. We allow the appeals ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
