TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 498X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he show cause notice did not require the respondent assessee to show cause for rejection of the claim on the ground that clearances made to International competitive bidding cannot be considered as exports. In the absence of such allegation, revenue cannot take this as a ground for setting aside the impugned order. Notification number 27/2012 contemplates for filing of refund claims of unutilised Cenvat credit quarterly, but it does not bar an assessee from filing refund claim for the entire period which may be more than a quarter. In the absence of any explicit bar, refund claims, if otherwise eligible, cannot be rejected on the ground that they are not filed quarterly. Refund allowed - Decided in favor of assessee. - Application No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t aside the same. Revenue is aggrieved by such an order, filed a stay petition and respondent assessee has filed a cross objection against the appeal filed by revenue. As we are disposing the appeal itself, the stay petition filed by the revenue is dismissed and cross objection filed by the respondent assessee is also disposed of. 3. Learned Joint Commissioner (authorised representative) submits that the impugned order is incorrect and erroneous. He draws our attention to the conditions of notification number 27/2012 and submits that the said notification mandated for filing of refund claims of unutilised credit quarterly; that the respondent assessee has not produced documents which would indicate that the final goods were exported. It ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s challenged by the revenue in High Court of Gujarat and the said appeal was rejected by their Lordships by a speaking order as reported at 2011 (269) ELT 17(Guj). He would submit that the 2nd point for rejection of the refund claim as to non-submission of the documents is also incorrect as notification number 27/2012 does not envisage of submission of proof of export along with the refund claims. 5. We considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the records. 6. The issue that falls for consideration in this case is whether the respondent assessee is eligible to claim the refund of Cenvat credit lying unutilised due to clearances of the finished goods to their purchase orders under International competitive bidding needs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... absence of any explicit bar, refund claims, if otherwise eligible, cannot be rejected on the ground that they are not filed quarterly. 6.5 Thirdly, we find that the first appellate authority has, on perusal of records, come to a conclusion that the clearances made by the respondent assessee to International competent to bidding can be considered as exports for which purposes, he has correctly relied upon the ratio of the decision of Honourable High Court of Gujarat in the case of Shilpa Copper Wire industries (supra). 7. In view of the foregoing, we find no merits in the appeal filed by the revenue. The appeal is rejected and the impugned order is upheld. (Operative part pronounced in Court) - - TaxTMI - TMITax - Central Excis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
