9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 216X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l Order No. 2014 9- 20151/2018 - Dated:- 7-2-2018 - SHRI S.S GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER Shri B.N. Gururaj, Advocate, For the Appellant Dr. J. Harish, Dye Commissioner(AR) For the Respondent per: S.S GARG These three appeals have been filed against the common impugned order dt. 13/09/2017 passed by the Commissioner(Appeals) whereby Commissioner(Appeals) rejected the appeals of the appellant and upheld the Orders-in-Original. Since the issue involved in all the three appeals is identical, all the three appeals are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The details of all the three appeals are given below: - Appeal No. period Demand Refund ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ported and the appellants are unable to utilize the accumulated cenvat credit. The jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner issued show-cause notices as and when-the refund claims were filed, proposing to reject the refund claims and also to recover entire CENVAT credit on the ground that the final product being 'nil' duty product, CENVAT credit is erroneously availed and hence recoverable with interest and penalty is imposable. Further for the period between 01/2016 to 12/2016, show-cause notice was issued for demanding CENVAT credit even though no refund claim has been filed. When the appellant filed refund claim for first three quarters by this period, again show-cause notice was issued to deny refund. Some sums claimed as refund we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - i.CC Vs. ANZ International [2009(243) ELT 40 (Kart)] ii. CC vs. ANZ International [2009(240) ELT A16(SC)] iii. Jobelle vs. CCE [2006(203) ELT 627 (Tri. Mum.)] iv. City Central Mall Naski Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE ST [2017-TlOL-4322CESTAT-Mum.)] 6. He also submitted that the demand in appeal No.ST/21593/2017 is time barred inasmuch show-cause notice for demand was issued 23 months and 17 months respectively after the date of filing the refund claims, He also submitted that the demand of ₹ 5,82,577/- under appeal No.ST/21595/2017 results in duplication of demand inasmuch as entired credit for the said credit has been demanded and confirmed in appeal No,ST/21594/2017. 7. On the other hand, the learned AR reitera ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
