TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 947X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed the claim for the same period and segregated the claim for January to March 2007 and submitted it separately. If they do not want to claim refund for October and November 2006, the refund claim would have been filed only for December 2006. Unless, I am able to take a view that the claim which was returned for the period from October 2006 to December 2006 was resubmitted in the eyes of law, it m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CENVAT Credit Rules 2004. Appeal No. C/775/2010 2. This appeal relates to refund claim filed for the period from December 2006 to March 2007. 3. The claim for the month of December 2006 has been rejected on the ground of limitation. It was submitted that appellant had submitted refund claim from October 2006 to December 2006 and this was returned with a letter indicating deficiencies. How ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ober 2006 to December 2006 was resubmitted in the eyes of law, it may not be possible to uphold the stand taken by the appellant that the part of the refund claim submitted has to be treated as resubmission of the earlier claim. The claims for October to December 2006 and December 2006 to March 2007 have to be treated as separate claims and in my opinion this has been correctly followed. Therefore ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd that a portion of it was taken before payment of service tax was made is not correct. It is the appellant s claim that claim for ₹ 52,775/- could not have been denied since this claim was made in respect of the amount taken as CENVAT credit after service tax was paid. This submission, I feel is in accordance with law and therefore the original authority should consider this issue favourab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... In this case also entire amount of credit of ₹ 3,84,175/- has been denied on the ground that a portion of the CENVAT credit was taken before payment of service tax was made. This issue has already been dealt with earlier. 8. An amount of ₹ 1,31,144/- has been denied on the ground that outward C F service is not admissible which has also been dealt with. 9. In view of the above d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
