9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (7) TMI 52X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... per the calculation they are claiming under rule 5 ibid. The said order-in-original has also been placed on record by the learned Chartered Accountant during the course of hearing. Time and again it has been held by the Tribunal that the revenue is not permitted to take contrary view on identical issue because if they are permitted to do so then the law will be in a state of confusion and will place the authorities as well as the assessees in a quandary. This contrary view of the very same adjudicating authority strengthens the submission of the appellant that they were not heard by the said authority before rejecting the refund partly. Applying the same on the facts of the instant matter, the total/net Cenvat credit is Rs.11,97,619/- w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fund claim for an amount of Rs.7,09,489/- for unutilized Cenvat credit accumulated in their Cenvat Account due to exports in terms of Notification No.5/2006-CE(NT) as amended by Notification No. 27/2012- CE(NT) r/w Rule 5 ibid. The Adjudicating Authority vide Order-in-Original dated 12.6.2017 sanctioned the refund of Rs.3,75,613/- and rejected the balance amount of Rs.3,33,876/- and the same was upheld by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) by way of impugned order. 4. I have heard learned Chartered Accountant for the Appellant and learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue and perused the case records including the written submissions/synopsis alongwith case laws placed on record. Identical issue of the Appellant herein for the im ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ized from the total Cenvat credit then the balance would be [Rs.11,97,619 Rs.4,88,130] Rs.7,09,489/-, which has been claimed by the appellant but rejected by both the authorities below. The lower authority has totally erred in deducting the utilized Cenvat credit i.e. Rs.4,88,130/- after getting the total refund amount i.e. Rs.8,63,743/- as per formula prescribed u/r. 5 ibid. The first appellate authority also seems to have decided the appeal mechanically without properly looking into the issue and also the submission of the appellant that they were not heard by the lower authority. 5. In view of the discussions made hereinabove, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed with consequential relief, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
