9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 1088X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ance Controller, for the Respondent. ORDER The appellant, M/s. Pelicans Automotive & Promotional Products Pvt. Ltd., filed a refund claim under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 for the quarter October, 2009 to December, 2009 for Rs. 12,00,148/-. However, they submitted a letter dated 7-5-2010 to the Deputy Commissioner stating that a certain amount of Rs. 4,08,900/- is inadmissible to them. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... held that the appellants are entitled to refund as there is no bar on filing multiple refund for the same period. The Commissioner (Appeals) observed that the earlier order dated 20-5-2010 sanctioned the refund to them and did not specifically reject the balance refund. It was held that such an order would not disentitled them from filing a fresh claim. Aggrieved by this order, the Revenue is in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere was no rejection of refund in the order-in-original dated 20-5-2010. He argued that the said order only sanctioned the refund. He also argued that they have filed a fresh refund application for the same quarter. 4. I have considered the rival submissions. I find that appellant had filed a refund claim of Rs. 12,00,148/- and the claim was sanctioned for an amount of Rs. 7,91,248/-. The cl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
