9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 912X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or respondent ORDER The appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal No. SB(76)76/TH-1/2011 dt.21.2.2011 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise Mumbai-I, whereby the Ld. Commissioner allowed the Revenue's appeal and set aside the Order-in-Original No. R-1700/2009-10 dt. 19.3.2010. 2. The fact of the case is that the appellant are engaged in the manufacture of Organic Chemic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt have availed the drawback and rebate claim. As per the provision of Rule 5 read with Notification No. 5/2006-CE(NT) if the drawback or rebate is claimed on the exported goods, refund under Rule 5 shall not be allowed. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the appellant is before me. 3. Shri Sunil Agarwal, Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that the adjudicating authority sanctioned t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y considered the submissions made by both the sides and perused the records. I find that the adjudicating authority in the original order quantified the refund of service tax amounting to Rs. 77,754/- on the basis of formula provided under Notification No. 5/2006-CE(NT) which appears to be correct. As regard the input credit, the adjudicating authority has not calculated the input cred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of refund under UT-1, therefore when the goods have been exported under UT-1 irrespective of the fact that other consignments were cleared under rebate or drawback, refund under Rule 5 in respect of goods cleared UT-1 cannot be denied. I find that the adjudicating authority has not correctly quantified the amount of refund on the input used in the goods exported under UT-1. Therefore the matter n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
