9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 1022X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he amount of 42,01 lakhs (serial No. 3 and 4) is contentious one and would require detailed arguments and consideration of various issues, also in view of the time elapsed appellant's counsel has, conceded that the issue as being not pressed, rearguing the issue on the pretext of filing a refund claim would be incorrect on the part of the appellant. Thirdly, these findings of the Tribunal in paragraph 15 has also attained finality in the hands of the apex Court. Hence seeking indulgence of the Tribunal for revisiting the issue once again is not in consonance with the settled law. Refund rightly rejected - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 11.80 3.56 8.24 4. Inputs lying with job workers 152.15 116.61 35.54 1.77 33.77 5. Inputs contained in finished goods I in stock 269.47 236.79 32.68 32.68 0.00 6. Inputs contained in shop made forgings and springs 114.03 0.00 114.03 0.00 114.03 TOTAL 2529.83 2124.09 405.74 168.04 237.70 2. After summarizing the issue as indicated in the above table in paragraph 13 of the same order the bench held as under: 13. In view of the decision above, assessee becomes entitled to entire amount of credit of ₹ 237.7 Lakhs as refund as per the table given earlier and assessee can file a refund claim before the appropriate authority which in our view cannot be/should not be rejected on limitation ground. Therefore in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the goods which are being exported. It is his submission that amount of refund which they had applied for as mentioned at serial No. 3 and 4 of the table were in respect of the goods which were exported. 8. Learned Authorised Representative reiterates the findings of the lower authorities. 9. On careful consideration of the submissions made I find that the impugned order by rejecting the refund claim of the appellant is correct and legal and does not require any interference for more than one reason. 10. Firstly, though the bench in paragraph No. 13 of the final order (as reproduced herein above) did state that the statutory provisions will not come in way of refund of accumulated credit attributable to goods which have been exported. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ceded that item N. 3 and 4 (of the table) needs decent burial, appellant should not have exhumed the issue by filing the refund claim before the authorities. To my mind the lower authorities were correct in rejecting the application filed for the refund of an amount of ₹ 42.01 lakhs. 12. Secondly, it has to be noticed that before the Tribunal clearly stated that the issue involved in the amount of ₹ 42,01 lakhs (serial No. 3 and 4) is contentious one and would require detailed arguments and consideration of various issues, also in view of the time elapsed appellant's counsel has, conceded that the issue as being not pressed, rearguing the issue on the pretext of filing a refund claim would be incorrect on the part of the ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
