TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 1098X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eceived & used in relation to manufacture - Held that:- “that the appellant had filed the claim of refund under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules” be read as “that the appellant had originally filed the refund claim under Notification No. 41/2007” but had subsequently prayed that the refund may also be considered under the provisions of Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. In this view of the matt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n No. 5/2006-ST and the said refund claim was rejected vide the Order-in-Original and the same was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). This Tribunal in para-3 of its order have noted the contention of the assessee that the refund claims where filed under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 in respect of the service tax paid on input services received used in relation to manufacture. The adjudi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as well as in the Order-in-Original. 2. On perusal of the Order-in-Original I find that in their reply to the deficiency memo the assessee had raised the question of claiming of refund and or consideration of refund under Notification No. 5/2006-CE read with Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The respondent-assessee had contended that without admitting that they are not covered by the pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a point of law whether the claim was allowable under Rule 41/2007 or under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Notification No. 5/2006-CE. A point of law can be raised at any time. The assessee herein had raised it in the reply to the show-cause notice and I find that the same was not considered in the Order-in-Original, but the same was considered and rejected in the Order-in-Appeal. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
