9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (7) TMI 899X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Shri M. Jagan Babu, Authorised Representative, for the respondent ORDER The issue involved in all these three appeals being the same, they are heard together and are disposed of by this common order. 2. Brief facts are that the appellants filed three refund claims under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 in terms of Notification No.27/2012-CE(NT), dated 18.06.2012 for the following periods: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ain FIRCs were not produced and, therefore, not considered as Export Turnover; (c) Some invoices were rejected as it is addressed to unregistered premises, and, therefore, the same was considered as ineligible; (d) The appellant did not have any CENVAT balance left at the time of filing the refund claim, the appellant has not complied with the conditions 2(g) and 2(h) of Notification No.27/201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... equired under clause 2(h) of the said notification. The adjudicating authority has rejected the refund on the ground that the FIRCs were addressed to unregistered premises. It is pointed out by him that the Commissioner (Appeals) in the appellant's own case for a different period had allowed the refund in respect of the issue that FIRCs are addressed to unregistered premises. He also relied upon t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... required documents before the refund sanctioning authority. The learned counsel has submitted that they would be able to produce and also explain in regard to necessary documents if they are given further chance. Taking note of the facts of the case, I am of the view that the matter requires to be remanded to the refund sanctioning authority. Ordered accordingly. The appeal is allowed by way of r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
