TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (7) TMI 965
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....& capital goods. The appellant therefore have not been on a position to utilize the Cenvat Credit. The appellant have preferred a refund claim of Rs. 4,52,084/- for the period April 2010 to June 2010. The Deputy Commissioner adjudicating authority, observed that for the period under consideration export of output service is valued at Rs. 1,04,37,943/- excluding service tax. For the accumulated unutilized Cenvat Credit appellant is to get refund in terms of Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004, read with Notification No. 5/2006-CE. It was further noticed that the appellant have taken Cenvat Credit of Rs. 3,73,289/- during the period as per return in Form S.T.3. Further, the adjudicating authority found that, with respect to services availed fr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h notification No. 5/2006 provided for substitution with retrospective effect from 14.3.2006. It have been observed as under: To give legal backing to the above said circular, leading to faster and fair settlement of the refunds claims, changes have been effected in Notification No.5/2006-CE (NT). Some of the changes have been made retrospective so that the pending cases are also covered. Other changes are being brought in prospectively, and are aimed at assisting the Departmental officers in faster processing of refund claims. The retrospective amendments are contained in clause 73 of the Finance Bill, 2010 while the prospective changes are contained in Notification no.7/2010- Central Excise (Non Tariff) dated the 27th February, 2010. Bot....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rther, refund of CENVAT should not be linked to CENVAT taken in a particular period only. Further, the appellant produced copy of amended certificate Centralized of Registration (Form ST-2) dt. 3.8.2013, wherein both address of the appellant's premises of Viman Nagar, Pune as well as additional the office at Ranjangaon Pune; have been recognized by the department. Further, the appellant contended that on plain reading of the Circular dt. 26.2.2010, the appellant is entitled to take refund for the amount rejected for last question in respect of professional services for want of proper address which the appellant again have claimed herein, in the present period and thus prays for allowing the appeal. Even otherwise also, the address at R....