9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 163X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the Appellants Mr. Sanjay Jain, (AR) for the Respondent Per Ashok K. Arya: 1. M/s Karnawat International Pvt. Ltd. is in appeal against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) dated 27.01.2011 and 11.04.2011. 1.1 Appeal No. 790/2011 This appeal pertains to rejection of refund of Rs. 81,368/-, where Commissioner (Appeals) inter alia observes that refund cannot be filed for the cenvat credit n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing refund claim, if claim is filed once for the period of one year, because it is certainly less than once in a quarter. In this regard CESTAT decision in the case of Western Cans Pvt. Ltd. vs CCE Mumbai-I 2011 (270) ELT 101(Tri. Mum) clearly holds that if refund is filed even once a year, it would avoid multiplicity and condition of notification is not interfered. 4. Further, Commissioner (Appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fund claims have to be examined by the Original Adjudicating Authority in the light of above findings and the matter is to be decided by him/ her within 4 months of receipt of this order. 5. In the case of Appeal No. 791/2011, the main reason of rejection of refund claim is that invoices have been issued in the name of the service provider, who in turn raised the debit note in the name of the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
