9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 845X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lapse of technical nature can be condoned so that substantive benefit is not denied - in this case there was only a procedural lapse and therefore the impugned order is liable to be set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/20303/2014-SM, E/20304/2014-SM, E/20305/2014-SM, E/20306/2014-SM, E/20307/2014-SM, E/20308/2014-SM, E/20309/2014-SM, E/20310/2014-SM And E/20311/2014-SM - 20792-20800/2017 - Dated:- 25-1-2017 - Shri S.S Garg, Judicial Member Shri B.G. Chidananda Urs, Advocate For the Appellant Shri Parasivamurthy N.K., Deputy Commissioner (AR) For the Respondent ORDER Per : S. S. Garg The present nine appeals have been filed by the appellant against the impugned order dated 25.10.2013 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Commissioner (Appeals) who upheld the impugned order and rejected the appeals. Hence the present appeals. 3. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in all the nine show-cause notices there is a common allegation that information of accumulation of cenvat credit is not available in the ER-2 Returns filed by the assessee which is a mandatory requirement for EOU to file under Rule 17(3) of the Central Excise Rules 2002 read with Rule 9(7) of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004. He further submitted that there is no finding at all on the specific rebuttal by the claimant/exporter that the information of availment of credit was provided vide ST-3 Returns and the same was transferre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... required under Board Circular No. 120/01/2010-ST dated 19.01.2010 was not filed along with the refund claim and it was submitted subsequent to the adjudication before the Commissioner but the Commissioner has wrongly refused to consider the Chartered Accountant certificate without any legal basis. He also submitted that non acceptance of the certificate of the Chartered Accountant which is in the nature of expert evidence is not tenable. In support of his submission, he relied upon the decision in the case of CST V. Qualcomm India Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2011 (22) STR 437 (T) wherein the Hon ble Tribunal observed that the Commissioner (Appeals) ought to have perused the Chartered Accountant's certificate prior to his decision and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
