9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (6) TMI 16X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /WZB/Ah'bad/2008-CII dated. 23-6-2008 certified on 24-6-2008 in Appeal Nos. E/1295-1296/2007) Shri S.J. Vyas, Adv. for Appellant Dr. M.K Rajak, SDR for Respondent [Order Per B.S.V. Murthy Member (Technical)] - The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Glass Mosaic falling under chapter 70 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They filed refund applications for refund of unutilized cenv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the appellants were not eligible for refund at all in view of the fact that Notification No. 5/2006 was not in existence during the period for which refund claims have been filed. 2. Heard both the sides. Shri S.J. Vyas, ld. Advocate on behalf of the appellants stated that prior to 14.3,2006, according to Rule 5, where it is not possible to utilize the amount of credit of duty paid on inputs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mestic clearances and the appellants' being 100% EOU and having no clearance to DTA, are eligible for cash refund and therefore, the amount ordered to be credited to the cenvat account by the Adjudicating Authority should be allowed as cash refund. 3. Ld. SDR Dr. Rajak on behalf of the Revenue supports the arguments put forth by the Commissioner (Appeals) and he also cites the judgment of Supreme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the Rule 5 had a provision for grant of refund when credit of service tax paid on input services could not be used by a manufacturer prior to 14.3.2006 and by both the manufacturer and the out put service provider after 14.3.2006. Since the amendment made on 14.3.2006 was only addition of "or the provider of out put service" without any other change, it is felt that the decision of the origi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
