2010 (4) TMI 259

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the period 1/4/2006 to 31/3/2007, in terms of Notification No. 5/2006-CE (NT) dt. 14/3/2006 issued under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The refund sanctioning authority i.e. the Asst. Commissioner, Cuddapah Division, called for a report from the jurisdictional Range Officer, Cuddapah Range, seeking information as to whether the appellants had actually paid the amount, claimed as refund; whether they were eligible for refund of service tax, claimed as refund; whether they were eligible for refund of service tax; whether the refund now claimed was already claimed previously; whether there were any dues to the department; whether the provisions of unjust enrichment were applicable and whether the claim is in order. The Range officer, in ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Credit Rules, 2004 in as much that there is non-observance of procedure of distribution of credit. He would draw my attention to the Rule 7 of the Cenvat Credit Rules. It is his submission that as far as the Appellant is concerned they do not have any other unit other than this EOU and in this unit also they do not have a sale/clearance to DTA. It is his submission that the reasons for accumulation of cenvat credit was because of the above two factors. It is submitted that in the background of the facts and allegation of violation of provisions of Rule 7 and non-observance thereof will not come in the way of the refund of the amount of credit. It is also his submission that the impugned order is contrary to the settled position as for an e....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....come in way of them from getting the refund. It is also the finding of the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) that if the procedure is not followed, then it would amount to availment of credit at various branches and on the strength of the bills in the name of the Head office. I do not find any mention of this allegation in the show cause notice. It is a presumptions finding of the ld. Commissioner (Appeals). It is also to be noted that the provisions of Rule 7 can be brought into play only if the appellant wishes to get registered himself as input service credit distributor. If the appellant is not inclined to do so and if he does not have any more than one manufacturing unit, then there is no compulsion for him to work under Rule 7. It is seen fr....