TMI Blog2012 (9) TMI 638X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Further, also noted that refunds were made only after obtaining registration. Matter was sent back only for limited question of verifying the documents and also finalizing the quantum of refund due to the appellant in the said refund claim. Therefore, impugned order dwelling on the eligibility of CENVAT Credit of the duty paid on the inputs is clearly beyond our order. In view of the foregoing, order rejecting refund is unsustainable and liable to be set aside – Decided in favor of assesse. - E/1438/2011 - - - Dated:- 1-8-2012 - Mr.M.V. Ravindran, Mr. B.S.V. Murthy, JJ. Shri Prakash Shah, Adv.: for Assessee. Shri V.K. Agarwal, SDR (A.R.): for the Revenue. Per: M.V. Ravindran: This Stay Petition is filed against ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iterated their contest to the findings and submitted that they are eligible for refund which also they did not find favour with the authorities. The said rejection of refund claim was upheld by the first appellate authority. Against such rejection by first appellate authority of the appeal filed, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Tribunal which was decided by the Tribunal as reported in 2011 (267) ELT 221 (Tri-Ahmd). The lower authorities, during the pendency of the proceedings of such rejection of refund claim, issued another Show Cause Notice to the appellant for reversal of the CENVAT Credit taken by the appellant on the strength of refund claim filed with their jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner, which according to the all ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at length by both the sides and perused the records. 6. The issue to be decided is whether the appellant has correctly availed or not the CENVAT Credit of Rs.96,34,466/- during the period 01.11.2008 to 07.10.2009, based upon the refund claim which was filed by them. 7. The primary issue in this case, in our considered view, will go back to our order in the appellant s appeal No.E/1449/2010, wherein the appellant was before the Tribunal for denial of refund claim, which has been filed by them for the goods manufactured even when the appellant was un-registered and exported the final goods manufactured by them. On perusal of our Final Order No.A/186/WZB/AHD/2011, dt.6.1.2011 (reported in 2011 (267) ELT 221 (Tri-Ahmd), we find that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o, wherever SSI benefits have been denied, cenvat credit has been allowed. Therefore, in this case also the action of the appellants in taking credit on 9-10-2009 has to be upheld. 8. Further verification of the records would also show that appellant had cleared the goods under Central Excise seal for export. In the examination report in respect of two sample consignments, it has been certified by the Central Excise Officers - further verified that benefit of cenvat credit under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 has been availed . This shows that appellants did have an intention to avail cenvat credit and it was only a clerical lapse due to which failure to obtain registration and make proper claims has arisen. Further, it is also to be noted t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant is eligible for refund of the amount of CENVAT Credit paid on the inputs which are consumed in the manufacture of finished goods which are exported. On perusal of Paragraph 11 of our order as reproduced hereinabove, we find that the ld.Counsel was correct in stating that we had sent the matter back only for limited question of verifying the documents and also finalizing the quantum of refund due to the appellant in the said refund claim. 9. In our considered view, the impugned order dwelling on the eligibility of CENVAT Credit of the duty paid on the inputs is clearly beyond our order, which as informed, as on date is not stayed by any higher judicial forum. 10. In view of the foregoing, we find that the impugned order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
