2016 (2) TMI 866

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....oner : Shri J C Patel, Advocate And Ms Shilpa Balani, Advocate For the Petitioner : : Shri J Nagori, Authorised Representative ORDER PER : MR.P.K. DAS, Revenue filed this appeal against the order of Commissioner (Appeals), where the refund of Rs. 15,25,899/- under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 was allowed. 2. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the records, we find that t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n the manufacture of goods exported. Hence, unutilized credit of input service to the tune of Rs. 15,25,899/- is not admissible. The Learned Authorised Representative reiterates the grounds of appeal. 4. We do not find any force in the submission of the Ld. Authorised Representative. Notification No 5/2006.CE(NT) dtd 14.3.2006 as amended issued in exercise of power conferred by Rule 5 of Cenvat C....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ing of goods exported. The expression "input service used in or in relation to the manufacture of final product" and "input service used for providing output service" in Clause (a) and (b) of separately in opening paragraph of Notification No 5/2006-CE(NT) would be read harmoniously. CBEC vide circular dated 19.1.2010 elaborated the definition : "of input services for manufacturer of goods, as g....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....CENVAT Credit Rules, they have to be construed in a harmonious manner." In the present case, we find that the Adjudicating Authority sanctioned the refund under Rule 5 in respect of the inputs. The dispute before us is denial of refund credit on input service used in relation to the manufacturing of the said goods. In our considered view, while the Adjudicating Authority allowed the input credit ....