9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (10) TMI 139X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ocate for the Appellant (s) Shri S.Mukhopadhyay, Authorized Representative for the Respondent (s) ORDER P.K. CHOUDHARY : The present appeal has been filed by the assessee, M/s. Corporate Ispat Alloys Limited, against Order-in-Appeal dated 19.03.2015 passed by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals-II), Central Excise, Kolkata whereby he has rejected the appeal filed by the assessee so as to uphold ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wherein several discrepancies were pointed out. The said Notice was adjudicated vide Order dated 14.08.2014 wherein it has been inter-alia observed that the refund claim which was filed by the assessee was barred by limitation of time and that the assessee is not entitled to the refund of CENVAT Credit under Rule 5 of the Credit Rules for the reason that the assessee has claimed drawback in terms ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Advocate relied on the Tribunal's decision in the cases of - * Commr, Central Tax, Guntur vs. Cholayil Pvt. Ltd. 2019 (28) GSTL 469 (Tri. Hyd.) * Commr, C. Ex., Kanpur vs. Sabharwals Medicals Pvt. Ltd. 2017 (357) ELT 1171 (Tri. All.). 5. The Ld. Authorized Representative appearing for the Revenue reiterated the findings made by the Ld. Commissioner and prayed that the appeal be rejected b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cate and the issue is no longer res integra. In view thereof, there is no reason to deny the refund when the Appellant has availed drawback of only the customs duty portion and not of excise duty which facts are not in dispute. 9. Insofar as the aspect of time bar is concerned, we find that since no observation has been made by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals), it would be fit to remand the matter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
