TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 1009X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of the appellant company. The department has denied the refund claims on the ground that the Cenvat credit in respect of these two services is not admissible. However, this issue stands decided in appellant's favour in the appellant's own case by the Commissioner (Appeals) in previous case. In view of this, the first ground on which the refund claims have been denied would no longer be valid. As regards the other ground for denial of the refund claims that the sale proceeds in respect of goods exported have not been received, it is seen that this condition is neither there in Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules nor this condition has been prescribed in the Notification No. 5/2006-CE (NT) issued under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e manufacturing business of the appellant. Similarly, the Assistant Commissioner in respect of the refund claim for July 2008 to September 2008 disallowed the refund to the extent of ₹ 2,19,539/- which represented the Cenvat credit in respect of CHA services used for export of the goods and courier services used in connection with the manufacturing business of the appellant. These refund claims were disallowed on the ground that the CHA services and courier services are not eligible for Cenvat credit and secondly the export proceeds have not been received by the appellant. On appeal being filed to Commissioner (Appeals) against these orders of the Assistant Commissioner, the Commissioner (Appeals) by a common order-in-appeal dated 21/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respect of the Cenvat credit availed in respect of CHA service availed for export of the goods and courier service availed in connection with manufacturing business of the appellant company. The department has denied the refund claims on the ground that the Cenvat credit in respect of these two services is not admissible. However, this issue stands decided in appellant's favour in the appellant's own case by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide order-in-appeal dated 02/01/12. In view of this, the first ground on which the refund claims have been denied would no longer be valid. 7. As regards the other ground for denial of the refund claims that the sale proceeds in respect of goods exported have not been received, it is seen that thi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
