2008 (7) TMI 340

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....1, a declaration was made that Cenvat credit has not been availed by the appellant and the input services utilized by the appellant have been utilized after the place of removal and therefore the refund of Cenvat credit of service tax paid on input services is not admissible. 2. Heard both sides. The learned advocate on behalf of the appellant submits that Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules under which refund claims have been submitted, makes the appellant eligible for refund if the Cenvat credit can not be adjusted for payment of duty on the finished goods or output services or for any other purpose. The rule also provides for issue of notification by Central Govt. prescribing conditions, procedure and safe-guards. He admits fairly that in A....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....udicating authority. He also submitted that the refund claim for May, '06 was not admissible since there was no export during the period. For that he also submitted that the correctness of the service tax paid on input services and eligibility for refund thereof, has also not been considered. 4. I have considered the arguments advanced by both sides and I am unable to agree with the stand taken by the Commissioner (Appeals) that refund is not admissible because the declaration was made in ARE-1 that no credit has been availed. I find that there is no such requirement under Rule 5 or in the procedures prescribed by the Govt. about the declaration to be made in ARE-1. Rule 5 requires only that goods should have been exported; credit could ....