TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 499X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not exported and hence not eligible for the refund - A construction of paragraph 4 of the N/N. 5/2006-CE (NT) dated 14th March 2006, in the disposal of refund claim of appellant, is in conflict with rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 to the detriment of the appellant-exporter and imposes conditions that are not envisaged in the said rule. Consequently, the denial of the claim for refund by the t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ₹ 4,64,11,571/- had been exported during January-March 2010. The original authority held that ST-3 returns for the period showed availment of only ₹ 3,41,447/- and restricted the refund to that amount while rejecting the claim of ₹ 5,46,688/-. This was upheld in impugned order-in-appeal no. P-III/RS/257/2011 dated 15 th September 2011 of Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... od pertaining to the refund claim. 5. It is to be noted that, the reason adverted in the impugned order notwithstanding, the original authority has not touched upon this aspect and merely adopted the figures for the corresponding months in the ST-3 returns. As pointed out in the appeal, ST-3 returns do not pertain to a quarter but to the half-year whereas the claims pertain to quarters and it w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... quarter relevant to the export is to prevent assessees who export only a portion of their output or output services from obtaining refund of credit of tax on inputs or input services that have not been utilised in export. 7. Appellant exports all its output services. Even if there is a lag in claiming the refund of credit availed in a different quarter, there is no reason to hold that such cred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
