9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (6) TMI 144X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en rejected arbitrarily and on presumption-assumption basis. The appellant had filed refund claim in the year 2004 and matter was under litigation for long time and it is almost for 16 years now. It would be wrong to expect the assessee to hold on to credit for such a long period. The condition 5 of the aforesaid Notification No. 11/2002-CE (NT) does not mean that the appellant should not be able ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and have opted Central Excise registration as they were getting goods manufactured from their job workers out of the inputs and packaged material supplied to them. On 18.11.2004, they filed refund claim for ₹ 21,96,532/- before the Adjudicating Authority for the credit lying with them in respect of goods exported from their job workers premises directly in terms of Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have gone through the rival submissions. I find that the sole reason for which the refund has been rejected is that the appellant have utilised a substantial part of the credit while the matter was in dispute. It has been asserted in the order that they might have further utilized the credit and may have reduced the same to nil. I find this observation absolutely baseless and unconvincing. Before ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anufacturer is not in a position to utilize the credit of the duty on inputs allowed under Rule 3 of the said rules against goods exported during the quarter or month to which the claim relates. 5. I find that the refund has been rejected arbitrarily and on presumption-assumption basis. The appellant had filed refund claim in the year 2004 and matter was under litigation for long time and it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
