9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (10) TMI 934X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l. Commissioner(AR) For the Respondent ORDER PER : P. DINESHA Brief facts leading to the present dispute as canvassed, inter-alia, are as under:- A refund claim amounting to Rs. 1,22,88,612/- filed for the period July 2016 to September 2016 under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 (CCR, for short) read with Notification No.27/2012 CE(NT) and in pursuance of para 2(h) of the said Notification; ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g to Rs. 44,03,405/- vide Order-in-Original No.129/2018-19 dt. 12/03/2019 and rejected an amount of Rs. 56,16,162/-; that appellant filed an appeal contesting refund of Rs. 11,17,246/- (proportionate refund claim for CENVAT Credit of Rs. 30,95,815/-); that OIO rejected the refund claim on the ground that the said credit amounting to Rs. 30,95,815/- did not pertain to the present claim period i.e. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... July 2016 to September 2016 after a time lapse of 2 years and is barred from claiming back in the Cenvat Credit account in terms of Rule 5 of CCR, 2004 etc. 2. Heard Shri Akbar Basha, learned consultant for the appellant and Shri P. Gopakumar, learned Additional Commissioner(AR) for the Revenue and I have gone through the supporting documents placed on record. 3.1. The appellant's first refund c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had failed to furnish any evidence. The only way out is therefore for the appellant to establish its case before the adjudicating authority with duly supporting documents. 4. In view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that the appellant should furnish the necessary supporting documents before the lower authorities who shall examine the same in the light of the appellant's claim for ref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
