9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 1278X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - ST/20342/2018-SM - Final Order No. 20963/2018 - Dated:- 9-5-2018 - MR. S.S GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER Shri Sarwan Kumar, CA For the Appellant Shri Madhupsharan, Asst. Commissioner (AR) For the Respondent ORDER Per: S.S GARG The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dt 20/12/2017 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal of the Department and held that the refund of ₹ 2,48,383/- was erroneously sanctioned by the lower authority and the same is liable to be recovered from the appellant along with interest. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellant is registered with the S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Service) Rs.23,640/- 27.06.2012 3. Heard both sides and perused records. 4. The learned consultant appearing for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same is contrary to the facts and the law. He further submitted that the refund has been rejected merely on technical grounds. He further submitted that the appellant is eligible to CENVAT credit of ₹ 2,43,383/- and the same was rightly refunded to the appellant under Rule 5 of the CCR. He further submitted that the Commissioner(Appeals) has accepted that the CENVAT credit on invoice No. 160403-2014 dt. 23/02/2012 is eligible but the same will be eligible only in the quarter in which the paymen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lied upon the following decisions:- i. Formica India Division [1995(77) ELT 551 (SC)] ii. Noble Grain Pvt. Ltd. [2009-TIOL-1901-CESTAT] iii Repo India Ltd. [2009(235) ELT 614] iv. CCL Products India Ltd. [2012911) TMI 651-CESTAT, Bangalore] 5. On the other hand, the learned AR defended the impugned order. 6. After considering the submissions of both the sides and perusal of the material on record, I find that there is no infirmity in allowing the refund by the original authority as the appellant has substantially satisfied the requirements prescribed under Rule 4(7) and Rule 9 of CCRs. The Commissioner(Appeals) has rejected the refund on mere technicalities after accepting that the appellants are eligible for refund. Furth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
