9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (3) TMI 1006X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r, Authorised Representative for the Respondent ORDER Rejection of refund claims of the Appellant, an 100% EOU, filed for the period between April 2013 and December 2014 amounting to Rs. 13,53,058/-, under Rule 6 A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 on the ground of non-compliance of para 2 (h) of the Notification No. 27/2012 C.E. (N.T.) dated 18.06.2012 is assailed by the appellant in this appeal. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the case of Commissioner of Customs (Import) Mumbai Vs Dilip Kumar and Company and Ors., submitted that it is not for an exemption notification to provide benefit necessarily to the assessee and therefore when the appellant had not debited Cenvat credit ledger in compliance to Rule 2 (h) it is not entitled to derive the benefits by refund of unutilized Cenvat credit for which he sought for no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of ST-3 return of 25.04.2014 also in page No. 41-42 of the Appeal Memo, utilization of Cenvat credits for the period were shown as "Zero" in all its refund columns. In response to the submissions of Learned Authorised Representative, it has also been conceded by the learned Counsel for the appellant that till the date of argument such debit was not made from the Cenvat credit ledger as not maintai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
