2016 (6) TMI 1095

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....L) Shri Rahul Tangri, CA for the appellants. Shri S. Nanthuk, JCDR for the respondents ORDER PER: SULEKHA BEEVI The appellants are aggrieved by rejection of their refund claim. 2. The appellants are engaged in manufacture of Poly Propylene Filament Yarn and are also availing CENVAT Credit on the duty paid on inputs. In respect of clearances of goods exported, the appellants filed....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the present case is the earlier one, i.e., Notification No. 11/2002-CE (NT) dated 11.02.2002. Both notifications are similar the conditions being pari materia except for that in Notification No. 5/2006, the words seventy percent or more is substituted as fifty per cent or more. 4. The notification No. 5/2006 provides for refund of CENVAT Credit subject to fulfillment of conditions set out in Ap....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the average export clearances of final products of the appellants for the previous quarter is less than 50%, i.e., only 20.97% and therefore the appellants have not fulfilled the condition and are not eligible for refund. We are not able to agree with this interpretation of condition No. 2(a) in the Notification. The condition stated in the notification regarding average export clearances has to ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....009 (246) ELT 626 (Tri-Del). 7. It is clear from the notification that that the requirement of showing the value of export clearances to be more than 50% is applicable only to a manufacturer/assessee who wants to file refund claim more than once in a quarter. The interpretation resorted by the authorities is to the effect that every manufacturer who files refund claim under Rule 5 has to necess....