2015 (12) TMI 949

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the Respondent. ORDER The appellant is an STPI unit and periodically filed refund claims in respect of inputs services used for providing output services since they cannot utilize Cenvat credit taken by them under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 read with Notification No. 5/2006-C.E. (N.T.). 2. The issue before me is whether the lower authorities were correct in rejecting the refund cl .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ne year and if done so, in addition to amount already held admissible by the Commissioner (Appeals), some more amount would become admissible since for the services rendered from 1st September onwards consideration was received only from end November 2007. Further he would also submit that while learned Commissioner (Appeals) has recorded his findings that the appellant would be eligible for refun .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ate of limitation for counting the date for limitation it should be 16-11-2007, finally he has held that refund of accumulated credit is sanctioned on the input services used after 16-5-2008 which clearly appears to be a typographical error. The learned CA would submit that the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) has been implemented and the refund claims prior to 16-5-2008 has been sanctioned. 6 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X