9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 157X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fact are in the name of the M/s Niranjan Seshadri. I find as these invoices are not in the name of the appellant unit, the lower authority has rightly denied the refund in respect of the Cenvat credit in respect of these invoices - Following decision of CCE Vs. Chamundi Textiles (Silk Mills) Ltd. [2011 (3) TMI 193 - CESTAT, BANGALORE] - Appeal partly allowed. - Appeal No. 59236 of 2013-SM - F. Order No. 57765/2013 - Dated:- 25-9-2013 - Mr. Sahab Singh, J. For the Appellant : Shri Jeevesh Mehta, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri Sanjay Jain, A.R. JUDGEMENT Per Sahab Singh : This appeal is filed by M/s Kolektor Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. against the order-in-appeal No. 125 dated 10th May 2013. 2. The brief facts o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t quarters and there is no such bar in the Notification N0. 5/2006. I find that in para 7 of this decision, the Tribunal held as under :- 7. I have carefully considered the case records and the submissions made by both sides. The ground raised to assail the impugned order is that it had allowed refund of accumulated input service credit which did not pertain to the goods exported during the periods for which the claims were made. I find that this aspect has been clarified by CBEC in para 3.3. of Circular No. 120/01/2010-ST dated 19.1.2010, which is reproduced below : 3.3. Quarterly refund claims [para 2(d) above]: As regards the quarterly filing of refund claims and its applicability, since no bar is provided in the notification, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is no bar in allowing the refund of the Cenvat credit pertaining to the period prior to refund period claimed by the appellant. Accordingly, following the said decision, I find that the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) are not sustainable and accordingly set aside. 6. I find that amount of Rs.8,676/- has been rejected by the lower authority in respect of invoices which are not in the name of the appellant. There is no dispute about the fact that these invoices are not in the name of the appellant and in fact are in the name of the M/s Niranjan Seshadri. I find as these invoices are not in the name of the appellant unit, the lower authority has rightly denied the refund in respect of the Cenvat credit in respect of these invoices. Acc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
