2016 (11) TMI 912

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....  Sanjay Hasija, Supdt. (A.R) for respondent ORDER The appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal No. SB(76)76/TH-1/2011 dt.21.2.2011 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise Mumbai-I, whereby the Ld. Commissioner allowed the Revenue's appeal and set aside the Order-in-Original No. R-1700/2009-10 dt. 19.3.2010. 2.  The fact of the case is that the appellant are en....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the Revenue on the ground that the appellant have availed the drawback and rebate claim. As per the provision of Rule 5 read with Notification No. 5/2006-CE(NT) if the drawback or rebate is claimed on the exported goods, refund under Rule 5 shall not be allowed.  Aggrieved by the impugned order, the appellant is before me. 3.  Shri Sunil Agarwal, Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the impugned order. 5.  I have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides and perused the records.  I find that the adjudicating authority in the original order quantified the refund of service tax amounting to Rs. 77,754/- on the basis of  formula provided under Notification No. 5/2006-CE(NT) which appears to be correct. As regard the input credit, the adjudica....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t can be cleared under rebate, drawback or claim of refund under UT-1, therefore when the goods have been exported under UT-1 irrespective of the fact that other consignments were cleared under rebate or drawback, refund under Rule 5 in respect of goods cleared UT-1 cannot be denied. I find that the adjudicating authority has not correctly quantified the amount of refund on the input used in the g....