TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 563X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ling within the one year time limit. As per the provisions of Rule 5, it is clear that the time limit, if any has to be counted from the relevant period in which the credit was availed and in the period in which services were received. Therefore, the basis on which the refund is rejected is not correct and not in accordance with law. The refund is not time-barred - refund allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/21604/2018-SM - Final Order No. 20461/2019 - Dated:- 11-6-2019 - SHRI S.S GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER Mr. Rajesh Kumar, CA For the Appellant Mr. Gopakumar, Joint Commissioner (AR) For the Respondent ORDER Per: S.S GARG ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vailed the cenvat credit in the month of March 2014 since during the said period there was no time restriction for availment of credit and they have included the same in the refund claim for the quarter January 2014 to March 2014 itself which is the period in which the credit was availed. He further submitted that the appellant had filed the refund application in the same month in which they have availed the credit on those invoices. He further submitted that even if the time limit of one year as prescribed under Section 11B is applicable, then the time has to reckon from availment of cenvat credit. He also submitted that the time limit of one year to avail the cenvat credit came into force from September 2014 whereas in the present case cr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... visions of Rule 5, it is clear that the time limit, if any has to be counted from the relevant period in which the credit was availed and in the period in which services were received. Therefore, I find that the basis on which the refund is rejected is not correct and not in accordance with law. Further I find that the refund is claimed within the period of one year from the relevant date when the credit was availed. Further the case-laws relied upon by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order is distinguishable and is not squarely applicable in the facts of the present case. In view of my discussion above, I hold that the appellant has filed the refund claim within one year from the date of availment of credit on those invoices and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
