9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 198X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal Order No. 20402-20405 / 2017 - Dated:- 16-3-2017 - Shri S. S. Garg, Judicial Member Mr. G.H. Pradyumna, Adv For the Appellant Mr. N. Jagadish, A.R. For the Respondent ORDER Per : S. S. Garg The appellants have filed these four appeals aggrieved by the impugned order dated 6.11.2013 whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) has disposed of four appeals of the appellant. Since the issue involved in all the four appeals is identical, therefore all the four appeals are being disposed of by the present order. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellants are 100% EOU engaged in the manufacture and export of Sheet Metal Enclosures and parts thereof. The appellants are holders of Private Bonded Warehouse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the undisputed facts of the case are that the appellants are a 100% EOU engaged in the manufacture and export of Sheet Metal Enclosure and during the disputed period, they had availed CENVAT credit on inputs such as electrical parts, packing materials, bus bar moulding, CRCA coils, LPG, aluminium sheets etc. He further submitted that the appellants had exported their final products. Thereafter claimed refund of unutilised CENVAT credit under Rule 5 and the Original authority after satisfying himself that the inputs in respect of which CENVAT credit has been availed has been used in the manufacture of final product, sanctioned the refund claim in terms of Rule 5 of CCR. He further submitted that in the present case there is no dispute ab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ls of the inputs used, nexus with the goods exported and the credit involved with each such inputs involved, except in Order-in-Original No. 80/11-R dated 15/07/2011, the ACCE has reproduced the claimant s clarification on inputs used. The original adjudicating authority is found to have merely sanctioned refund of cenvat credit availed during the impugned period, found to be lying unutilised, without proper check of the main criteria. After considering the submissions of both parties, I find that this case needs to be remanded back to the original authority who will decide afresh the refund claims of the appellant after considering the fact of inputs declared by the appellant having been used in the manufacture of final product export ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
