9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (2) TMI 349X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8 - Held that:- Commissioner (Appeals) is otherwise not opposed to the idea of maintenance of a common CENVAT credit account of BED as also AED. If the appellant would have maintained a common account, they would have debited the said common account for the entire refunded amount of ₹ 87.10 lakhs. It is not disputed that as per the provisions of Rule 3, Sub-rule 4, the CENVAT Credit availed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... After hearing both the sides, I find that the appellant is an exporter of yarn and were entitled to the refund of CENVAT credit availed by them in respect of inputs used in the manufacture of export of yarn, in terms of the provisions of Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. Their application for refund of the said amount was sanctioned by the Asst. Commissioner allowing the refund of Rs.87,10,153 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... refund claim of Rs.11.36 lakhs AED (T TA). As the appellant was having a balance of Rs.4.91 lakhs under the said heading, they debited the same from the said account and the remaining amount of Rs.6.46 lakhs approximately from the CENVAT credit account BED. 4. The lower authorities have confirmed the said amount of Rs.11.36 lakhs of AED (T TA), which was refunded to the appellant as erroneous r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the BED account and AED (T TA) account separately. Refund cannot be granted on assumptions and presumptions. Thus the adjudicating authority has rightly confirmed the demand against the appellants. Accordingly, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order." 6. It is seen from the above that Commissioner (Appeals) is otherwise not opposed to the idea of maintenance of a common CENVAT c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... intained their CENVAT credit account in the manner they should have maintained and in the manner which now pleaded by them. The said manner which stands pleaded, by the appellant is not against the provisions of Rule 3(4) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and as such I find that in as much as BED and AED could have been utilised inter-challengeably, action of the lower authorities cannot be held to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
