2018 (5) TMI 1710

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e and In Bond Manufacture Sanction Order. They are also holders of Central Excise Registration. They are manufacturers and exporters of 'Readymade Garments' falling under Chapter 62 of the CETA, 1985. They are availing CENVAT credit under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 (CCR, for short). They had filed a refund claim for Rs. 22,40,250/-, under Notification No.05/2006CE(NT) dt. 14/03/2006, which was supposedly the accumulated CENVAT credit of service tax paid during the period April 2011 to September 2011 on input service said to have been used for manufacture and export of final products. The jurisdictional Range Officer verified the claim and found that the appellants were not eligible for refund. Subsequently, show-cause notice dt. 06/0....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....passed by the Tribunal. He further submitted that the renting of immovable property service has been used in relation to manufacture of exported goods and in terms qualify as input service as defined in Rule 2(l) of CENVAT Credit Rules. In respect of this submission, he relied upon the following decisions:- i. Indian Additives Ltd. Vs. CCE [2016(45) STR 154 (Tri. Chennai)] ii. Alliance Global Services IT India (P) Ltd. Vs. CCE & ST, Hyderabad [2016(44) STR 113 (Tri. Hyd.)] 4.2. Second submission of the learned counsel is that there is no bar under the said notification to file one refund claim for more than one quarter. In support of this submission, he relied upon the decision in the case of CCE & C, Nagpur-I Vs. Fabri....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r submitted that as per the Notification No.5/2006-CE dt. 14/03/2006, it is a mandatory condition that there has to be export during the quarter for which the refund is claimed whereas in this case, there is no export turn over during the said quarter and subsequently also there is no possibility of export because the unit has been debonded. He further submitted that the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant are clearly distinguishable because in those cases there was no export during the particular quarter but subsequently there was an export which satisfies the conditions of the notification. But in the present case, there is no export during the said quarter when refund of CENVAT credit was claimed. Learned AR re....