9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 764X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the Commissioner (Appeals) as there was no specific time limit for credit to be taken under the Cenvat Credit Rules - No valid reason to interfere with the decision on merits given by the Commissioner (Appeals) holding that refund could not be rejected on the ground that the credit has been taken belatedly. Commissioner (Appeals) has merely given another opportunity to the respondents to prod ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , DR, for the Appellant. None, for the Respondent. ORDER This is an appeal by the department against an order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No. 147/2009, dated 2-12-2009. 2. None appears for the respondent in spite of notice. 3.1 The Original authority, while considering the claim of the respondent for refund under Rule 5 of CCR, 2004, allowed refund of Rs. 13,53,722/- and rejected ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the light of submissions made before him that they have all the relevant documents. The relevant portion of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is reproduced :- 9. Further, the other reasons for denying refund are - Document does not contain service provider details; in admissible document; documents not produced. The appellant has stated that they have submitted all the documents in su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... redit Rules. 6. In respect of the other grounds on which the refund has been rejected, the Commissioner (Appeals) has merely given another opportunity to the respondents to produce the documents before the Original authority for fresh consideration. This has been given in the light of the submissions made before the Commissioner (Appeals). As the matter required factual verification by the Origi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
