TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 1174X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te submits that Notification No.41/2007-ST, dated 06.10.2007 also grants relief to the assessee, inasmuch as, the period of limitation provided in terms of the said notification for filing refund claims was subsequently extended, such refunds are otherwise admissible in terms of Rule 5. Matter remanded to original authority to examine the documentary evidences in support of the refund claims - appeal allowed by way of remand. - ST/00318/2010, ST/00319/2010 - Final Order No. 43456-43457/2017 - Dated:- 18-12-2017 - Smt. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) and Shri B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical) For the Appellant : Ms. S. Sridevi, Adv. For the Respondent : Shri K. Veerabhadra Reddy, JC (AR) ORDER Per Archana Wad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... such, the question of limitation, as prescribed in the said notification would not arise. The said plea of the appellants was not accepted and Commissioner (Appeals) who by examining the applicability of Notification No.41/2007-ST, dated 06.10.2007, rejected the claim. 6. The assessee's submission is that the claims were filed under Rule 5, which allows claiming of refund of unutilised credit. As regards, the availability of the credit, learned Advocate submits that the services in question are Port Services and in case of exports, the said services have to be held cenvatable. This stands held by various decisions of the Tribunal reference can be made to the following case laws:- (i) M/s. Lamtuf Plastics Ltd. Vs Commissioner o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Authorised Representative Shri K. Veerabhadra Reddy on behalf of Revenue submits that as seen from show-cause notice and Order-in-Original and also from the Order-in-Appeal, the claim was not filed under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Show-cause notice and impugned order discussed Notification 41/2007- ST, dated 06.10.2007 and for the purpose of eligibility of the services on which refund is claimed is the point of contention. It is alleged in the show-cause notice, the services on which the refund claim has been made under Notification No.41/2007-ST, dated 06.10.2007 are said to be made eligible with respective dates. In the grounds of appeal, the appellants have not contested that they have filed refund claim under Rule 5. The issu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 is not applicable to the impugned services, which do not qualify as input serviced defined under Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 on the ground that these are post removal services not having any relevance with the manufacture of export goods. 9. As such, it is seen that the submissions made by learned Authorised Representative are factually incorrect submissions and against the observations made by Commissioner (Appeals). Even though, the said fact was brought to the notice of the learned Authorised Representative, he still insisted that the refunds were not filed within Rule 5. We really fail to understand and appreciate the above stand of the learned Authorised Representative inspite of clear fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
