TMI Blog2008 (6) TMI 16X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - whether manufacturers were eligible for refund prior to 14.3.2006 or not – Held, yes - matter remanded to the original Adjudicating Authority to take a decision in terms of the notification after examining all aspects - E/1295-1296/2007) - A/1215-1216/WZB/Ah’bad/2008-CII - Dated:- 23-6-2008 - Shri B.S.V. Murthy, Member (Technical) Final Order Nos. A/1215-1216/WZB/Ah'bad/2008-CII dated. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it in respect of inputs or input services towards payment of duty on final products or payment of service tax on out put services. Accordingly he sanctioned the refund claimed but credited it to their cenvat account. On appeal being filed by the appellants, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside not only the order granting the refund by way of credit in cenvat credit account but also held that the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was that the service providers also became eligible for refund from 14.3.2006. He states that original Adjudicating Authority had correctly understood this and accordingly allowed the refund but credited the amount to the cenvat credit account. He states that since the rule allowed the benefit of cash refund to manufacturers if they cannot utilize the credit for payment of duty on their domestic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orted in 2007 (82) RLT 127 (SC')=2007-TIOL- 139-SC-CX wherein it was held that amendment to a notification is prospective and if the intention was to give retrospective effect, it would have stated so specifically. 4. The main question to be decided is whether refund in cash has to be allowed in terms of Rule 5 and whether manufacturers were eligible for refund prior to 14.3.2006. There is no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
