TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 1088X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er, 2009 and the new claim also pertains to exactly the same period. I find that the Notification No. 5/2006-C.E. (N.T.), dated 14-3-2006 in clause (2) prohibits filing of more than one refund claim in any quarter in a calendar year. Moreover, the earlier order-in-original dated 20-5-2010 has attained finality as the same has not been challenged by the respondents. It is not open to respondents to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant filed another claim of ₹ 5,45,240/- for the same period October, 2009 to December, 2009 seeking refund of the amount which they had earlier claimed was inadmissible and certain other amounts. The said refund claim was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner on the ground that they do not fulfil the conditions as provided under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and also for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ribes that refund cannot be filed more than once in any quarter. It is argued that even for EOU there is a facility for filing a monthly return for each month of the quarter but the same is not a permission to file multiple refund for the same quarter. It was also argued that the order-in-original dated 20-5-2010 restricted the amount of refund after considering the assessee s own letter dated 7-5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s to exactly the same period. I find that the Notification No. 5/2006-C.E. (N.T.), dated 14-3-2006 in clause (2) prohibits filing of more than one refund claim in any quarter in a calendar year. Moreover, the earlier order-in-original dated 20-5-2010 has attained finality as the same has not been challenged by the respondents. It is not open to respondents to raise the issue afresh by filing a new ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
