9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 1337X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submitted that they have filed all the documents along with refund claim application but the same has not been considered by both the authorities and the refund has been rejected on flimsy grounds - Held that: - the case needs to be remanded back to the original authority with a direction to consider the documents filed by the appellant in support of their claim as per the N/N. 5/2006 dated 14.3.2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re unable to utilise the credit towards their output liability, therefore they have filed the refund of CENVAT credit under Rule 5 of CCR read with Notification No.5/2006-CE dated 14.3.2006. The appellant filed refund claim of ₹ 14,33,562/- and ₹ 6,16,200/- for the month of January 2010 and March 2010, respectively. The Assistant Commissioner vide Order-in-Original dated 29.2.2012 reje ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the parties and perused the records. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is contrary to facts, law and evidence and also contrary to catena of judicial decisions. He further submitted that the learned Commissioner (A) has failed to understand the conditions prescribed under the refund Notification and rejected the claim even though each and every require ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he authorities by additional submissions duly filed by the appellant. However, the learned appellate authority has not considered such substantiation of nexus and passed the impugned order ignoring the said submissions. 5. On the other hand, the learned AR reiterated the findings of the impugned order. 6. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the impugned ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
