TMI Blog2008 (10) TMI 108X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Consultant, for the Appellant. Smt. R. Bhagyadevi, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order]. - M/s. Jenntex Engineering Company, Coimbatore, has filed this appeal. In the impugned order, the Commissioner (A) affirmed an order of the original authority rejecting a refund claim filed by the appellants for an amount of Rs. 1,17,296/-. The assessee had exported a consignment of machinery to Nepal without payment of duty, under bond. On 29-4-05, they claimed refund of Rs. 1,17,296/- being Cenvat credit relatable to the machinery exported under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules (CCR), 2004. The appellants had filed the refund claim on the basis that they were not in a position to utilize the above Cenvat credit. 2. The appellant had opted to av ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lants submits that as per Notification No. 11 /02-C.E. (N.T.) (supra), which laid down procedure for claiming refund of Cenvat credit under Rule 5 of CCR, the appellants could claim refund once in every quarter. As per the above notification, refund was allowed in those circumstances where a manufacturer was not in a position to utilize the credit of the duty on inputs allowed under Rule 3 of the said rules against goods exported, during the quarter or month to which the claim related. As the exports had taken place on 9, 15 and 30 March 05, the appellant could claim refund validly on any date in April, 2005. It had filed the claim on 29-4-05. 4. The appellants had opted for the SSI exemption as per notification No. 8/03 (supra) from 1- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the factory on the basis of the scheme that existed prior to 16-3-95. It was held that the scheme sought to be introduced could not be made applicable to the goods which had already come into existence in respect of which the earlier scheme was applicable and under which the assessee had availed of the credit facility for payment of taxes. It was held that the right which accrued to the assessee on the date when they paid the taxes would continue until the facility available thereto got worked out or until those goods existed. Following the above ratio, the Apex Court held in Samtel India Ltd., (supra) that sub-rule (17) could not apply to vested rights. To the extent that the goods had already been exported prior to March, 1997, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... idered the case records and submissions by both sides. In the instant case, the appellants had accumulated Cenvat credit in their accounts on account of exports made on 9, 15 and 30 March, 2005. The appellants could claim such accumulated credit as on 31-3-05 at any time in April, 2005 as the appellants were permitted to avail claims once in every quarter and the subject claim pertained to the quarter ending 31-3-05. The judicial authorities cited by the ld. Consultant for the appellants are to the effect that the assessee could not be deprived of its vested right to claim refund of duty paid on inputs even consequent to a change in law. In the instant case, the appellants filed a refund claim properly following the procedure prescribed. It ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
