Rebate claims cannot be denied on inconsistent stand, limitation, or nexus objections when substantive entitlement is otherwise established.

A rebate claim was held maintainable where the Revenue had earlier accepted the same alternate-notification treatment on identical facts, and it could not take a contrary stand for a later period. The claim was also found to be within limitation because it was filed within one year from the end of the relevant quarter, so the time-bar objection failed. Denial on the alleged absence of nexus between input services and exported output services was likewise rejected on the facts, as the services had been accepted in similar matters. The rejection of the rebate claims was therefore set aside, with consequential relief to the assessee.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether rejection of the rebate claim on the ground that the claim could not be considered under Notification No. 5/2006-CE (N.T.) was sustainable; (ii) whether the claim was barred by limitation; (iii) whether denial on the ground of lack of nexus between input services and exported output services was justified.

Issue (i): whether rejection of the rebate claim on the ground that the claim could not be considered under Notification No. 5/2006-CE (N.T.) was sustainable.

Analysis: The appellant had earlier been granted similar relief by the adjudicating authority under the same alternate notification, and that order had been affirmed by the Tribunal. Once the Revenue had accepted that position for an earlier period, it could not adopt a contrary stance for a later period on identical facts. The impugned rejection based on refusal to treat the application as one under the alternate notification was therefore unsupported.

Conclusion: The objection was not sustainable and was against the assessee.

Issue (ii): whether the claim was barred by limitation.

Analysis: The claim was filed within one year from the end of the relevant quarter. The period of filing was therefore within the permissible time limit, and the plea of time bar could not survive.

Conclusion: The claim was not time-barred and this issue was in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): whether denial on the ground of lack of nexus between input services and exported output services was justified.

Analysis: The record showed that the services relied on by the appellant had already been accepted in principle in similar matters, and the objection of absence of nexus was not upheld on the facts presented. The denial on this ground was thus not sustainable.

Conclusion: The nexus objection failed and was in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The rejection of the rebate claims was set aside and the appellant obtained the consequential relief flowing from allowance of the appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: The Revenue cannot take inconsistent stands on identical facts for different periods, and a rebate claim filed within the prescribed period cannot be denied on procedural objections when the substantive entitlement is otherwise established.

---