9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 1305X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tral Excise Act, 1944 is to be determined by complying Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and the assessee can file the refund claim for a quarter and the last day of the quarter has to be considered for determining the limitation in terms of Section 11B. There is no infirmity in the impugned order whereby the Commissioner (A) has only remanded the case back to the original adjudicating author ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appeals are being disposed of by this common order. 3. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the assessee had filed two refund claims for the period from January 2016 to March 2016 which was partially rejected by the Orders-in-Original dated 16.5.2017 and 18.5.2017 passed by the Assistant Commissioner. Aggrieved by the said order, assessee filed appeal before the Commissioner (A) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rms of Notification No. 12/2013-ST dated 1.7.2013 as amended is allowed only in respect of specified services approved by the Unit Approval Committee/ Development Commissioner of SEZ. In the present case, these services do not find a place and therefore, refund has rightly been rejected by the original authority. He also submitted that on the issue of limitation, the Commissioner (A) has relied up ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of both the parties, I find no infirmity in the impugned order whereby the Commissioner (A) has only remanded the case back to the original adjudicating authority for a fresh adjudication keeping in view the law laid down by various appellate authorities and the High Court. Since there is no infirmity in the impugned order, I uphold the impugned order and dismiss both the appeals of the Revenue. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
