TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether refund of unutilized Cenvat credit on input services could be denied on the ground that the exports had taken place before the amended Rule 5 and Notification No. 5/2006-CE (NT) came into force; (ii) Whether the stipulation that refund claims may be submitted for each calendar month was mandatory so as to bar a consolidated yearly claim.
Issue (i): Whether refund of unutilized Cenvat credit on input services could be denied on the ground that the exports had taken place before the amended Rule 5 and Notification No. 5/2006-CE (NT) came into force.
Analysis: The amended refund mechanism was treated as applicable where the claim satisfied the requirements of Rule 5 and the notification, and no condition was found restricting refund only to exports made after 14-03-2006. The earlier denial based purely on the date of export was therefore not sustainable.
Conclusion: The denial of refund on the ground of pre-amendment exports was not justified and was in favour of the assessee.
Issue (ii): Whether the stipulation that refund claims may be submitted for each calendar month was mandatory so as to bar a consolidated yearly claim.
Analysis: The use of the word "may" in the notification indicated a facility and not an inflexible mandate. A consolidated claim accompanied by the requisite documents could not be rejected merely because it was not filed month-wise, though the claim remained subject to the limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
Conclusion: The monthly filing condition was directory and not mandatory, but the claim had to be examined for limitation.
Final Conclusion: The matter was remanded for determination of the admissible refund and the time-bar aspect under Section 11B, without rejecting the claim solely for want of monthly filing.
Ratio Decidendi: Refund under the amended Cenvat credit refund provisions cannot be denied merely because the exports occurred before the amendment if the claim otherwise satisfies the rule and notification, and a procedural filing requirement expressed in permissive language is directory unless the statute clearly makes it mandatory.
TaxTMI 
