9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 48X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dent ORDER Heard Shri G. Thangaraj, Ld. Consultant for the assessee and Ld. DR, Shri M. Jagan Babu, AC for the Revenue. 2. Ld. Consultant appearing for the assessee contended that there are two issues involved viz., i) denial of cenvat credit on "House Keeping Services'', and ii) refund of unutilized input service credit under Rule 5 of CCR read with Notification No. 27/2012-CE (NT) dated 18. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (Tri.-Chen.) and also the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Cosmonaut Chemicals Vs. UOI - 2009 (233) ELT 46 (Guj.) in his support. 3. Per contra, Ld. DR supported the findings of the lower authorities, also pointed out that the date of application is 12.07.2017, which has been duly considered and refund has been worked out as on 12.07.2017. He further pointed out that a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ling of refund claim. The adjudicating authority has rejected the appellant's claim of it having made the refund claim on 27.06.2017. The first appellate authority has also concluded the date of filing of the refund claim was 12.07.2017 only as against which the appellant contends that there was an attempt to file the refund claim on 27.06.2017 but, the said application was accepted only on 12.07. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any finding by the lower authorities as to the non-compliance with any of the provisions of Rule 5 of CCR, 2004 for rejecting appellant's claim. This, coupled with date of acknowledgement by the Legacy Cell, makes it very clear that the appellant's claim for refund was in order and is even so, in terms of Notifications referred to in the Order-in-Original. For the above reasons, I am of the consid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
