9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 646X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Kumar, Adv. Mr. M.K. Maroria, AOR ORDER Leave granted. The short question which arises is as to the correctness of the impugned order of the Gujarat High Court which upheld the order of the Commissioner of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "CESTAT"). The revenue had rejected the appellant's claim for refund of excise input credit, after adjustment of the tax liability for the relevant period towards the output liability. The revenue authorities had relied upon the condition in Notification No. 1/2005-CE which required every assessee to give up credit of duty on inputs or capital goods. The relevant extract of the exemption notification reads as follows : "Notification New Delhi, dated the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e is used in the manufacture of final product which is cleared for export under bond or letter of undertaking, as the case may be, or' used in the intermediate product cleared for export, or used in providing output service which is exported, the CENVAT credit in respect of the input or input service so used shall be allowed to be utilized by the manufacturer or provider of output service towards payment of, (i) duty of excise on any final product cleared for home consumption or for export payment of duty; or (ii) service tax on output service, and where for any reason such adjustment is not possible, the manufacturer or the provider of output service shall be allowed refund of such amount subject to such safeguards, conditions an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have been adjusted at the stage, when it was sought and that the context of the present case was with respect to the liability, accruing on account of the alleged credit for the period after the benefit of Notification No. 1/2005-CE was sought and given. The Court has considered the submissions of the parties. The findings of the lower authorities in the opinion of this Court are unclear as to what was the relevant period. Although there is a reference to under Section 11 B of the Central Excise Act; the exact period in this case would be determinative. In case, the appellant had indeed sought refund of excess credit or whatever credit was lying to its account as on the date it applied for exemption under Notification No. 1/2005-CE, its ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
