9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 787X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... utput service - it is already held in the catena of judgements that the substantive benefit of CENVAT credit cannot be denied on mere procedural lapses. It is expected from the adjudicating authority to consider the various decisions given by the Tribunal and relied upon by the appellant - appeal allowed by way of remand. - E/21753/2014-SM, E/21754/2014-SM, E/21755/2014-SM, E/21783/2014-SM - Final Order No. 21338-21341 / 2017 - Dated:- 21-7-2017 - Shri S. S. Garg, Judicial Member Ms. S. Vishnupriya, Advocate for the appellant Shri N. Jagadish, Superintendent(AR) for the respondent ORDER Per : S. S. Garg The present four appeals have been filed by the appellant against impugned orders dt. 7/2/2014, 10/2/2014 and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e period April 2009 to September 2009. Appellant vide letter dt. 10/03/2010 filed refund claim of ₹ 46,99,463/- under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit rules, 2004 for the period April 2009 to September 2009 as per Notification No.5/2006-CE(NT) dt. 14/03/2006. Thereafter a show-cause notice was issued to the appellant proposing to reject the refund claim on the basis that the final product of the appellant is exempted from excise duty. Thereafter, after following the due process of law, the Assistant Commissioner vide order dt. 18/01/2011 rejected the refund claim. Aggrieved by the said OIO, the appellant filed appeal and the Commissioner(Appeals) vide Order-in-Appeal dt. 07/02/2013 allowed the appeal on the condition that the appellant wil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder Rule 5 of the CCR. She further submitted that the Assistant Commissioner in the OIO dt. 24/06/2013 has wrongly held that the very basic condition for claiming refund under Notification No.5/2006CE has not been complied with and the Assistant Commissioner has also observed that there was no export during the quarter and therefore the appellants are not entitled to the refund claim. She further submitted that the Commissioner(Appeals) has failed to consider that the verification of the documentary evidences done by the lower authorities on merits was erroneous and was contrary to the direction of the Commissioner(Appeals) at Bangalore. She further submitted that the learned Commissioner(Appeals) has wrongly observed that the appellant ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... )] ii. CC CE, Vapi Vs. DNH Spinners [2009(244) ELT 65 (Tri. Ahmd.)] iii. Secure Meters Ltd. Vs. CCE, Jaipur-I [2010(18) STR 490 (Tri. Del.)] iv. Tirupati Pipe Allied Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE C, Nasik [2008(227) ELT 147 (Tri. Mum.)] 7. On the other hand, the learned AR reiterated the findigns of the impugned orders. 8. After considering the submissions of both sides and perusal of materials on record, I find that the refund claim has been rejected on the ground of technical discrepancies in the invoices raised by the appellant. further it is a settled principle of law that substantive benefit of credit cannot be denied on procedural or hyper technical objection. Since in this case, all the invoices are raised in r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
