TMI Blog2021 (6) TMI 900X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... laim is filed after six months for two quarters there is no violation of any condition. Only condition which bar the refund is refund should be filed within the overall period of one year from the relevant date. If that be so refund is well within the time limit and same should be allowed. Further, it has been held by co-ordinate Mumbai CESTAT (M/s. WNS Global Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. C.C.E., Pune III [ 2015 (11) TMI 905 - CESTAT MUMBAI] , followed in M/s. Q Logic India Private Limited vs. C.S.T., Pune [ 2016 (7) TMI 1175 - CESTAT MUMBAI] that for the purposes of refund, the CENVAT credit of any particular quarter will include the amount of brought forward credit as well from the earlier quarter - When this is the position of law, then d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ence, according to him, the same was ineligible. On appeal before the First Appellate Authority, the Commissioner (Appeals-II) having confirmed the rejection, the present appeal has been filed before this forum. 3. When the matter was taken up for hearing, Shri N.V.S. Ramani, Learned Consultant, appeared for the assessee-appellant and Shri Arul C. Durairaj, Learned Departmental Representative, appeared for the Revenue. 4. Heard both sides, perused the documents placed on record and have also gone through the various decisions relied upon by the Learned Consultant for the appellant. 5.1 It is the case of the appellant that there was no inward remittance for the period from July 2016 to September 2016 and hence, no FIRCs were availab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ondition. Only condition which bar the refund is refund should be filed within the overall period of one year from the relevant date. If that be so refund is well within the time limit and same should be allowed. 6. Further, it has been held by co-ordinate Mumbai CESTAT (M/s. WNS Global Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. C.C.E., Pune III 2015 (11) TMI 905 CESTAT Mumbai, followed in M/s. Q Logic India Private Limited vs. C.S.T., Pune 2016 (7) TMI 1175 CESTAT, Mumbai) that for the purposes of refund, the CENVAT credit of any particular quarter will include the amount of brought forward credit as well from the earlier quarter. When this is the position of law, then denying the refund on the ground that the CENVAT Credit on input services was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
