9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 770X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rg, Judicial Member Mr. N. Anand, Advocate K. S. Ravi Shankar For the Appellant Mr. Parasivamurthy, AR For the Respondent ORDER Per : S. S. Garg The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 15.7.2017 passed by the Commissioner (A) whereby the Commissioner (A) has rejected the appeal of the appellant. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellant is a 100% EOU and engaged in the manufacture and exports of readymade garments falling under Chapter 61, 62 and 65 of CETA, 1985 and is registered with Central Excise. They had earlier availed CENVAT credit of duty paid on various input services and had applied for the refunds of accumulated, unutilized CENVAT credit on various input ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... documentary evidence on record. He further submitted that both the authorities have rejected the refund claim mainly on the ground that there was discrepancy in the amount of CENVAT credit availed as per refund application filed by the appellant and the credit availed as disclosed in the ER-2 returns. He further submitted that both the authorities have not bothered to appreciate the critical aspect that the appellant had maintained CENVAT credit account in terms of Rule 9 of the CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 and as per the records maintained by the appellant, the total CENVAT credit availed during the period was ₹ 34,43,096/- though the appellant had stated only ₹ 22,81,894/- in their ER-2 Returns. It is his further submission that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellant has in fact reversed the CENVAT credit of ₹ 34,43,095/- whereas inadvertently in the ER returns, he has shown ₹ 22,81,894/-. To explain this discrepancy, he has produced the certificate of CA as well as the CENVAT credit account register maintained by him which clearly shows that he has reversed the credit of ₹ 34,43,095/- but the learned Commissioner (A) has observed that the appellant has not given any explanation as to how the ER-2 monthly return and refund application are showing different CENVAT credit availed on input and input services. In my view the certificate issued by the CA as well as the CENVAT credit register clearly shows that the figure shown in the ER returns is wrong and the appellant has filed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
