TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (3) TMI 193
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed order was challenged by filing Appeal No.E/304/2010 dated 12.2.2010. As the Order-in-Appeal impugned in the appeal No.E/304/2010 had disposed four appeals filed by the assessee against Orders-in-Original, the Bench had directed the revenue to file these supplementary appeals. The delay involved in filing these appeals is condoned after hearing both sides. 2. Revenue has filed these appeals impugning Order-in-Appeal No.452/2009 dated 5.11.2009. The particulars of the Orders-in-Original and the material particulars of the Order-in-Appeal impugned are as follows: Period of dispute Date of show cause notice Order-in-Original Amount of refund claimed Amount of refund allowed by Com. (A) December 2007 27.01....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iginal Authority had rejected all these refund claims on the ground that the appellant had claimed the refund claim of cenvat credit which was actually received in the factory in the earlier months, whereas the refund claims were pertaining later months. On this I find that the appellant were 100% EOU and so exporting their whole products. Even if the goods were received in their factory earlier only, during that time also there were exports effected by the appellant. All the services / goods received by the appellant are used for the production of goods which were subsequently exported. This makes no difference on their eligibility. If this was not eligible for the particular month then also it was eligible for the preceding or succeeding ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ich credit was taken by the respondents were addressed to the Head Office. The Original Authority had correctly denied credit in respect of these documents. 5. The learned SDR justified the orders of Original Authority relying on the provisions of Notification No.5/2006 dated 14.3.2006. He relies on the following two conditions, 4 & 5 of the appendix to the above notification. 4.?The refund is allowed only in those circumstances where a manufacturer or provider of output service is not in a position to utilize the input credit or input service credit allowed under rule 3 of the said rules against goods exported during the quarter or month to which the claim relates (hereinafter referred to as the given period ). 5.?Th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nue. It is submitted that credit was not admissible against photocopies or documents addressed to its Bangalore office. He also reiterates the point that part of the credit in dispute did not pertain to services which were input services used for the manufacture of the export goods. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the dispute stands settled in favour of the assessee in their own case, in CCE, Mysore Vs. Chamundi Silks Textiles Ltd. 2010 (20) STR 219 (Tri.-Bang.) dealing with similar dispute for an earlier period. The Tribunal had held that if the credit was admissible in a particular month, it would be admissible either in the preceding or succeeding months also. The assessee was eligible for refu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at it had allowed refund of accumulated input service credit which did not pertain to the goods exported during the periods for which the claims were made. I find that this aspect has been clarified by CBEC in para 3.3 of Circular No.120/01/2010-ST dated 19.1.2010, which is reproduced below. 3.3?Quarterly refund claims [para 2(d) above] : As regards the quarterly filing of refund claims and its applicability, since no bar is provided in the notification, there should not be any objection in allowing refund of credit of the past period in subsequent quarters. It is possible that during certain quarters, there may not be any exports and therefore the exporter does not file any claim. However, he receives inputs/input services during....