9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 947X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Respondent : Mr. N. Jagadish, A.R. Per : B.S.V.MURTHY Both the appeals involve a common issue namely refund of CENVAT credit accumulated and claimed under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004. Appeal No. C/775/2010 2. This appeal relates to refund claim filed for the period from December 2006 to March 2007. 3. The claim for the month of December 2006 has been rejected on the ground of limita ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mber 2006, the refund claim would have been filed only for December 2006. Unless, I am able to take a view that the claim which was returned for the period from October 2006 to December 2006 was resubmitted in the eyes of law, it may not be possible to uphold the stand taken by the appellant that the part of the refund claim submitted has to be treated as resubmission of the earlier claim. The cla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e remanded to the original authority, it will be appropriate to leave it to the original authority. However, the denial of the entire refund claim on the ground that a portion of it was taken before payment of service tax was made is not correct. It is the appellant's claim that claim for Rs. 52,775/- could not have been denied since this claim was made in respect of the amount taken as CENVAT cre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... redit could not have been denied. Appeal No. 776/2010 7. This appeal relates to the claim for refund from April 2007 to September 2007. In this case also entire amount of credit of Rs. 3,84,175/- has been denied on the ground that a portion of the CENVAT credit was taken before payment of service tax was made. This issue has already been dealt with earlier. 8. An amount of Rs. 1,31,144/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
