9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (10) TMI 139X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... JUDGEMENT Per R. K. Singh: The appellants herein filed this appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. 1(DK/ST/JPR-I/2009 dated 13.01.2009 in terms of which the Commissioner (Appeals) had upheld the adjustment of Rs. 11,18,182/- out of the total refund of Rs. 11,79,720/- sanctioned vide Order-in-original No. 44/R/2007 passed by Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, Alwar which adjusted the impugned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xtent of Rs. 11,18,182/-. The appellants contended that the refund sought was of the excess amount paid by them which should be sanctioned and that the amount of cenvat credit on capital goods (Rs.11,18,182/-) was rightly taken on the strength of the documents issued by their Head Office in respect of the capital goods actually used by them for providing the output service and they and their Head ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... no provision to adjust unconfirmed demand from the amount of refund. It is seen that there has been no show cause notice given to the appellants for showing cause as to why the cenvat credit amount of Rs. 11,18,182/- (adjusted from the amount of refund sanctioned) was inadmissible to them and how the same was recoverable under what provision of law and how it was not hit by time bar inspite of ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appellants to show cause as to why the refund claim should not be rejected to the extent of Rs. 11,18,182/-. 3. While it is arguable that the amount of Rs. 11,18,182/- taken as cenvat credit on the strength of the document received by the Head Office of the appellants is clearly admissible as has been held in several cases of the appellants themselves, in the instant case, this point is beside ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
