TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (7) TMI 498
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n in this case is whether the respondent is eligible for the refund of the Cenvat credit that remained unutilised due to clearances of the final products under International competitive bidding and duty liability was not required to be discharged. Adjudicating authority has rejected the said refund claim on the ground that the assessee respondent has filed a single claim for the period January 2014 to December 2014, while notification number 27/2012 stipulates for filing of quarterly refund claims under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules; also rejected the refund claim on the ground that shipping bill which is a document indicated as per rule for evidencing export, duly certified was also not produced. Aggrieved by such an order, the respondent ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... notification needs to be read restrictively. He would submit that the first appellate authority has wrongly relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Western cans private Limited 2011 (270) ELET the 101. 4. Learned Counsel draws our attention to the grounds of appeal of the revenue and submits that the show cause notice which is issued for rejection of refund claim does not require to show cause that reason of supplies to International competitive bidding being one of the reason. He would draw our attention to the show cause notice and submit that the said show cause notice seeks to reject the refund claim only on the ground of having filed a claim yearly and non-submission of documents. He would submit that the decision of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or more than one reason. 6.3 Firstly, we find that the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent assessee, was correct in bringing to our notice that the show cause notice did not require the respondent assessee to show cause for rejection of the claim on the ground that clearances made to International competitive bidding cannot be considered as exports. In the absence of such allegation, revenue cannot take this as a ground for setting aside the impugned order. This law is now fairly settled by the Honourable High Court of Bombay in the case of Bajaj auto Limited 2003 (151) ELT 53. In the said judgement, their Lordships held that Ground in Appeal cannot go beyond the show cause notice. 6.4 Secondly, we find that notification number 2....