9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 1848X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... R, for the Respondent. ORDER This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the impugned order dated 10-10-2017 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants, who are manufacturer of goods falling under Chapter 72 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, had filed a refund claim of Rs. 2,04,801/-. The refund claim was made on the ground that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rule 9(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and, therefore, the adjudicating officer rightly rejected the Cenvat credit. He points out that the relevant Rule 9(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 does not require to file an application and the Deputy Commissioner/Assistant Commissioner should have suo motu allowed their request. 4. Ld. AR reiterated the findings in the order of Commissioner ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... second stage dealers or [provider of output service], and the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise or the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, as the case may be, is satisfied that the goods or services covered by the said document have been received and accounted for in the books of the account of the receiver, he may allow the Cenvat credit." On plain reading of this Rule, it is evident ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the said invoices have been received and accounted for in their books of accounts by them. After considering the same, the Commissioner would pass a fresh order in accordance with law. The appellants would be given fair opportunity to present their case.
8. The appeal is disposed of by way of remand in above terms.
(Operative part pronounced in the Court) X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
