9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 453X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the respective services. Accordingly, it was entitled to cenvat credit of such service tax. But such credit not being possible to be utilised that was accumulated. Therefore, appellant claimed refund of Rs. 67,85,179/- of such accumulated credit under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. This claim involved in Appeal No.E/320/2008 pertains to the month of July 2006. Similar such claim of Rs. 69,24,938/- involved in Appeal No.E/194/2008 pertained to the month of June 2006. Two different returns for these period were filed separately showing the claim. But Revenue disallowed the claim on the following grounds :- (a) The appellant claimed drawback as well as refund of cenvat credit unutilized. Therefore refund is not permissible. (b) The unu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... status of the appellant as an exporter manufacturer. He further submits that when Rule 5 has not made any provision prohibiting carried forward credits to be refunded that does not take away right of the appellant to the refund since taxes are not exported but goods are only exported. 4. Appellant's last submission is that all the invoices relating to availing of services being verifiable from record showing payment of service tax those were not at all debit notes. Necessary particulars of paying service tax being verifiable from record, appellant is not disentitled to the credit thereof. Refund thereof when falls under Rule 5 of CCR 2004 there cannot be any denial thereto. 5. Revenue on the other hand submits that appellant made dou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... disentitled to claim of refund thereof. Therefore entire carried forward credit remaining unutilized should be refunded. 9. So far as the allegation of repetitive claim is concerned, record does show any material as to repetitive claim of this cenvat credit made by appellant. If the appellant had made double claim, the authority should have brought in clear terms as to the amount whether claimed for the self-same period. There were two claims pending before the authority but that is not the case of repetitive claim. Therefore, the allegation of double claim is ruled out. 10. So far as the execution bond for export is concerned, we have answered in preceding para that when the exports were not covered by drawback claim of service tax, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
