9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 1142X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 05/2008. However, on departmental review the same was set aside by the first appellate authority against which the present appeal is filed. The only grounds taken by the first appellate authority is that unutilized credit could have been utilized for DTA clearances being made by the appellant. However, there is no such restriction under Rule-5 of CCR and he refund notification issued there under . ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r(Appeal) has allowed the appeal filed by the Revenue against refund of ₹ 10,02,301 sanctioned by Adjudicating Authority under OIO No. 1069/R/2008 Dated 26/05/2008. 2. Shri Hardik Modh (Adv.) and Shri Arjun Akruwala (CA) appeared on behalf of the appellant. Shri Hardik Modh (Adv.) argued that appellant is a 100% EOU taking Cenvat Credit on the inputs used when the exports are made under b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ould not be exported. It was also his case that if certain goods are cleared in DTA then that fact cannot be made the basis of rejecting refund claims of cumulative Cenvat Credit on exports under Rule-5 of CCR. 3. Shri J. Nair (Authorised Representative) appearing on behalf of the Revenue defended the order passed by the appellate authority. 4. Heard both sides and perused the case records. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
