9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 726X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tter should be considered as refund claim only and the period of limitation should be reckoned considering the letter dated 22.10.2014 as a claim for refund. Adjustment of cenvat credit - HELD THAT:- This is cenvat credit which was already accrued to the appellant, before 01.09.2014 there was no time limit for which adjustment was sought for all the invoices were issued prior to 01.09.2014, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the original authority on the ground of time bar. The Commissioner (Appeals) conquering with the views of the adjudicating authority upheld that order in original dated 09.03.2017 and rejected the appeal, therefore, the present appeal. 2. Sh. J.R. Mankodi, Ld. CA appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that as regard refund of ₹ 81,533/-, the refund was rejected on time bar. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty Commissioner (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. 4. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides and perused the records. I find that there are two issues to be decided by me, one is whether the appellant is entitled for refund of ₹ 81,533/- and whether the appellant is entitled for adjustment of cenvat cred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re, cenvat credit on the said invoices cannot be denied on the ground of time bar. Therefore, the demand of ₹ 1,85,149/- is not sustainable and the same is set aside. As regard refund claim of ₹ 81,533/-, the same may be re-processed. 5. Considering my observation regarding time limit, as discussed herein above, the appeal is partly allowed in above terms. (Pronounc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
