TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 232X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 15 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 on the appellant for having unauthorizedly availed cenvat credit. This proceeding has become final. - appellant cannot be heard to contend that cenvat credit on CHA input service availed by it was valid and legitimately availed. The adjudication order dated 24.8.2009 and the conclusion thereon that the appellant irregularly availed cenvat credit estopps the appellant for canvassing such a contention. The conclusion of the authorities below that the appellant was disentitled to refund of ₹ 12,48,993/- is therefore impeccable and warrants no appellate intervention. - Decided against assessee. - Service Tax Appeal No. 1442 of 2011 - Final Order No. 53167/2015 - Dated:- 7-10-2015 - Hon ble Mr. Justice G. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a further letter dated 17.6.2008, appellant resisted the audit objection and departmental premise regarding appellant s disentitlement to cenvat credit and stated that the amount of cenvat credit availed along with interest ion all amounting to ₹ 12,48,993/- was reversed by it and the interest component of ₹ 69,327/- was also deposited vide TR-06 challan dated 16.06.2008, in cash. In its letter dated 17.6.2008, the appellant categorically informed Revenue that it had reversed the cenvat credit and remitted the interest component as well, under protest and preserves its right to seek refund and recourse other legal measures. 3. However and despite appellant s reversal of cenvat credit availed along remittance of interest in ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aim for refund of the cenvat credit reversed and interest remitted was not legitimate, and could not be sanctioned. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant preferred an appeal which was also rejected by the impugned order. Hence this appeal. 5. Ld. Counsel for the appellant contends that CHA services were utilized by the appellant for facilitating clearance of its exported goods from the port of Export i.e. the place of removal in case of exported goods. Therefore, the concurrent findings by the authorities below rejecting the refund claim are unsustainable . This contention by the ld. Counsel for the appellant has substantial merit. 6. The order dated 24.12.2009 was passed in adjudication proceedings initiated by a show cause notice allegin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
