2015 (10) TMI 517

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d, it transpires that the first appellate authority has clearly recorded the factual matrix of the case as to there being no dispute that the appellant had rendered export of services and has availed Cenvat credit of the input services received by him. Revenue is only disputing the quantum of the refund claim which has been sanctioned to the appellant based upon the finding that the provisions of Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 contemplates for sanctioning of the refund based upon a formula which according to the Revenue authorities indicates that the appellant has been sanctioned additional refund which is not due to them. 5. On perusal of the said formula and the case, I find that the appellant have claimed that invoice no. Mar 1....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ria. As per the first proviso to Rule 5(2) of the CCR, refund in respect of services exported could be made under the old Rule 5 of the CCR within a period of one year, i.e. upto 31.03.2013. In other words, for the exports made upto 31.03.2012, refund was admissible under the old rule 5 of the CCR and for the exports made on or after 01.04.2012, refund is admissible under the new rule 5 of the CCR. Accordingly, for all exports completed upto 31.03.2012 by way of their provision & issuance of invoice, the new Rule 5 of the CCR is not applicable. 16. Applying the provisions described in Para 15 above on the present case, I find that the Appellant have included the invoice No. Mar'12-01 and invoice No. Mar 12-02, both dated 30-03-2012, i....