9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 100X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rnational P. Ltd. Vs. CC [2009 (2) TMI 110 - CESTAT Bangalore] , Glittek Granites Ltd. Vs. CC [2009 (9) TMI 306 - CESTAT, BANGALORE] and Bisazza India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE [2008 (6) TMI 16 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD] all said cases directly relate to present issue – Therefore, in view of observations made in said cases, it has to be held that appellant is eligible for benefit of refund – In absence of specific defects identification, rejection on such ground does not arise – Thus, appellants eligible for refund and accordingly appeals are allowed – Decided in favour of Appellant. - ST/101/2008-SM, ST/368/2008-SM - Final Order No. 26984-26985/2013 - Dated:- 22-11-2013 - B.S.V. MURTHY J. For the Appellants: N. Anand / Ashok Deshpande, Advocates ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n able to show that incidence of duty has not been passed on. 3. Heard both sides. The learned counsel relies upon the following decisions of the Tribunal to support his submission that appellants are eligible for the refund:- 1. Fibres Fabrics International P. Ltd. Vs. CC [2009 (14) STR 809 (Tri. Bang.)]. 2. Glittek Granites Ltd. Vs. CC [2010 (18) STR 45 (Tri. Bang.)]. 3. Bisazza India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE [2008 (12) STR 591 (Tri. Ahmd.)]. He also submitted that the lower authorities travelled beyond the show-cause notice when they held that the CENVAT credit is not at all admissible. He also submits that while examining the refund claim, refund sanctioning authority cannot consider whether the credit was admissible or n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er hand, all the decisions cited by the learned counsel directly relate to the issue before me. Therefore, it has to be held that appellant is eligible for the benefit of refund. While coming to this conclusion, I find that this issue was examined by myself while passing an order in the case of Bizazza India Pvt. Ltd. (supra). The relevant paragraph in the decision is in para 4 which is reproduced below: 4.?The main question to be decided is whether refund in cash has to be allowed in terms of Rule 5 and whether manufacturers were eligible for refund prior to 14-3-2006. There is no dispute that the Rule 5 had a provision for grant of refund when credit of service tax paid on input services could not be used by a manufacturer prior to 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
