2008 (6) TMI 147

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Rule 3 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 which remained utilized on account of the exports clearances of their finished goods effected by them. Refund claim was filed under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002/2004 read with Notification No. 5/2006-CE (NT) dated 14-3-2006. The earlier Notification No.11/2002-CE (NT) dated 1-3-2002 issued under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002, prescribed the safeguards, conditions and limitations for allowing refund of the unutilized input credit to the manufacturers. The said Rule 5 has been substituted by a new Rule 5 vide Notification No. 4/2006-CE (NT) dated 14-3-2006 to enable refund of unutilized input/input service credit to the manufacturers and service providers and consequently Notificat....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....espect of input service credit relating to export prior to 14-3-2006 could not have been sanctioned. It was submitted that this matter came up before the Tribunal in the case of WNS Global Services (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Mumbai wherein the Tribunal vide its Order No. A/49 to51/08/WZB/CSTB/C-I dated 18-1-2008 [2008 (10) S.T.R. 273 (T)] has held that once refund claim even though filed after amendment satisfies every requirement of Rule 5 and the notification issued thereunder, the refunds cannot be rejected as there was no condition in the notification or rules that such refund would apply in respect of the exports made after 14-3-2006 only. In view of this, refund claim could not have been denied. As regards the second ground for rejecting the&nb....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... no condition in the notification or rules that such refund would apply only in respect of the exports made after 14-3-2006. We accordingly hold so. As regards the condition of filing of monthly refund, we agree with the appellants' contention that since the word used is "may", this has to be considered as facility of filing even monthly claim but even where yearly claim is filed alongwith requisite documents as long as refund claim with requisite documents is within time limit provided under Section 11B, the same cannot be denied. However, noting that the refund claim has been filed in July, 2006, the possibility of some amount being time barred, is 'not ruled out. The matter is accordingly remanded back to the original authority to arrive....