9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (6) TMI 391X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... than, SDR JUDGEMENT Per Rakesh Kumar:- 1.1 The appellant are engaged in providing taxable service which they have exported. The period of dispute in this case is from April07 to Sept.07. In providing the output service for export, they have used certain inputs services in respect of which they took Cenvat Credit of Rs.11,20,486/-. Since they could not utilize this credit for payment of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The appeal against this order of Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner was dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide order-in-appeal dt. 23.09.08, against which this appeal has been filed. 2. Heard both the sides. 3. Sh. K.S.Ravishankar, Advocate and Sh. Anirudh R.J.Nayak, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the appellant, pleaded that the refund application was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at in view of this the impugned order rejecting the refund application on the ground that the conditions prescribed in Notification No. 12/05-ST have not been fulfilled and the procedure have not been followed, is totally incorrect. 4. Sh. Yashpal Sharma, the learned DR, defended the impugned order by reiterating the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals). 5. We have considered the submissions f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iming rebate in respect of export of services in term of Rule 5 of the Export of Service Rules, are totally different. The lower Authorities mixed up the two issues. In this case it was required to be seen as to whether the procedure prescribed under Notification No. 5/06-CE(NT), issued under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 has been followed and the conditions prescribed in this Notifica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
