2016 (5) TMI 901

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....heir 100% services they filed a refund claim on 8.5.2013 under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 for the period April 2012 to June 2012 for an amount of Rs. 2,33,981/-. The sanctioning authority i.e. the Assistant Commissioner allowed the refund of Rs. 1,41,618/- and rejected the refund of Rs. 92,363/, on the ground: (a) invoices towards Cenvat credit of Rs. 2093/- was raised on address which is not registered address. (b) FIRC No. 1380499 for Rs. 11,00,335/- was received on 13.4.2012 and refund was filed on 8.5.2013 which is beyond 1 year, hence, proportionate refund in respect of this FIRC was held to be time barred and the refund of Rs. 90,270/- on this count was rejected. The appellant being aggrieved by the Order-in-Original No. R/13....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....IRC related to the refund of Rs. 90,270/- was received by the appellant on 13.4.2012, therefore the export was completed in April 2012. In terms of export of service Rules, therefore the refund of the said amount falls within the quarter April 2012 to June 2012. In view of this fact, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has wrongly held that there is no export during the quarter April, 2012 to June, 2012. He also submits that since the appellant have exported their 100% services, therefore even if it is assumed that the refund falls in some different quarter entire Cenvat Credit availed by them is refundable for this reason also refund could not have been rejected. As regard, the refund of Cenvat Credit amounting to Rs. 2093/-, it was rejected by....