9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 563X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... RDER Per: S.S GARG The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 16.07.2018 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected the appeal of the appellant. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellants are 100% EOU and are engaged in manufacture and export of 'Spectacle lens of other material' falling under Chapter 90 of Central ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itted that the impugned order rejecting the refund claim only on time-bar is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without considering the date of availment of credit and the provisions prevailing during the relevant period. He further submitted that the appellant has availed the cenvat credit in the month of March 2014 since during the said period there was no time restriction for av ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s were raised during the year 2012 but they missed out from taking the cenvat credit of those invoices and the same was filed in the month of March 2014 and in the same quarter, the refund was filed which is within one year from the relevant period in which the credit was availed. He also submitted that the decision relied upon by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order is not applicable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in March 2014 itself which is falling within the one year time limit. Further I find that 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, I find that the basis on which the refund is rejected is not correct and not in accordance with law ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
