2016 (2) TMI 609

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....in fact consideration for export has been received on 11.4.2012 while refund claims has been filed on 26.4.2013, which is beyond a period of one year. The apparent mistake on face of record, according to the learned AR is that the Branch has not recorded any findings on the point of relevant date for filing the refund claim under new rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 which indicates that the refund claim is to be filed within one year of the end of the relevant quarter. 3. Learned Counsel submits that the factual matrix of receipt of FIRC is on 11.4.2012 which is relevant fact. It is his submission that it may not have any effect on refund which has been sanctioned to the assessee, as the Commissioner (Appeals) has reduced the amount fro....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r has the effect of contra entry. 4.2 As regards the second error sought to be rectified, I find that the findings recorded by the first appellate authority on this point i.e. whether refund claim is to be filed within one year from the end of the quarter or not is very relevant, which I reproduce:- "In view of the above statutory provisions, I find that unless the entire quarter is completed, the exporter cannot file his refund claim, as the crucial documents like Bank Realization Certificate issued during the said quarter are required to be submitted along with the refund claim. Also the formula prescribed in the new Rule 5 of the CCR requires the use of 'Net CENVAT credit' which can be arrived at only at the end of the relevan....