9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 778X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... them, hence they are not in a possession to utilize the CENVAT Credit availed as there is no home clearances. Thus rejection of refund claim by the authorities is not in consonance with the law. Also the learned Counsel was correct in stating that the issue of availment of CENVAT Credit under Rule 9A of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 on the goods lying in stock has been settled by this Bench in the case of P.K. International . [2014 (10) TMI 126 - CESTAT MUMBAI ] The interest claim by the appellant on amount of ₹ 79,177/- is required to be allowed as the appellant has contested the issue on which interest is to be paid. As regards the claim of the learned Counsel for interest of the balance amount of refund which was sanctioned by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e adjudicating authority, this Bench in Order NO. A/887/C-IV/SMB/2007 dated 15.6.2007 specifically recorded with credit that credit availed under Rule 9A could not be differentiated under Rule 3(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules. Rule 9A only provides for method for calculation of credit which can be availed on. Against the said order, Revenue did not file any appeal. 2.2 On remand the adjudicating authority has sanctioned the refund claim of ₹ 6,20,094/- and rejected the refund claim of ₹ 79,177/- on the ground that the appellant could not produce duty paying documents. The first appellate authority also upheld the same order. 3. The learned Counsel would submits that provisions of Rule 9A of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 are ver ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er the appellant is eligible to avail CENVAT Credit under the provisions of Rule 9A(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002. It is his submission that it should have been brought on record whether the goods were sent to the appellant or somebody else. In such situation, rejection of the refund claim was correct. 5. After considering the submissions made by both sides and perusal of the case records, I find that the impugned order rejecting the refund claim for amount of ₹ 79,177/- is not correct for more than one reasons. Firstly, the show-cause notice dated 11.2.2004 directed the appellant to show cause as to why not refund claims be rejected as they are improper on the ground that the refund is not allowed under Rule 9A, whereas the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ities and the said stock has been verified and found to be correct. The appellant had availed the CENVAT Credit of this stock, as provided under Rule 9A(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 and it is not disputed. It is also not disputed that the appellant has exported the entire fabrics manufactured by them, hence they are not in a possession to utilize the CENVAT Credit availed as there is no home clearances. In my considered view the rejection of refund claim by the authorities is not in consonance with the law. I also find that the learned Counsel was correct in stating that the issue of availment of CENVAT Credit under Rule 9A of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 on the goods lying in stock has been settled by this Bench in the case of P.K. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
