9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (4) TMI 1066X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), whereby the Appeal preferred by the Appellant/Revenue came to be rejected. 3. Briefly the facts of the case as found from the records are that the Respondents filed twenty quarterly refund claims during the period 05.03.2007 to 07.08.2010 for the exports made during the period February, 2006 to March 2010. In these refund claims, the Respondents claimed refund of cenvat credit of duty paid on inputs (excluding chasis credit) for an aggregate amount of Rs. 28,89,30,788/-. The Central Excise Department issued separate Show Cause Notice for each of the refund claim proposing to reject the aforesaid twenty refund claims on following ground :- (a) The Respondents are availing Duty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AT against the portion of the Order in Appeal dated 20.01.2010 which was against them. The Department did not file any Appeal against the portion of the Order in Appeal dated 20.01.2010 which was against the Department. The CESTAT by an Order dated 08.09.2011, allowed the Appeal of the Respondents by holding that the Respondents are manufacturers and, can therefore, file a refund claim under Rule 5. The CESTAT, however, remanded the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the refund claims for verification. The Commissioner(Appeals) vide Order in Appeal dated 23.09.2011 held that the refund claims are eligible in terms of Rule 5 and, accordingly, directed the Lower Authority to process and sanction/grant the refund claims after verif ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Revenue. Being aggrieved by the said Order, the Appellants have preferred the said Appeal. 4. We have heard Shri C. A. Ferreira, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants and Shri J. Jain, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent. With the assistance of the learned Counsel, we have also gone through the Orders passed in the above proceedings. On perusal of the impugned Order, we find that the learned Tribunal has noted that the contention of the Appellants was that though the refund was being adjudicated under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, nevertheless, the safeguards and the conditions mentioned therein were not being examined. It was further contended that the adjudicating authority has not verified whether the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... claim to the tune of Rs. 28,79,05,870/-, deserves to be allowed. The learned Tribunal also noted the Order passed by the Appellate Authority which had also up held the sanction of refund and rejected the Appeal of the Revenue-Appellant herein. 5. On perusal of the impugned Orders, the contention of the Revenue- Appellant herein that the Respondent were not manufacturers, came to be rejected. It was also found that the refund was being claimed in respect of the inputs used in the manufacture of final products which were exported. This was based on the certificate of the chartered accountant who has also certified to that effect. During the course of the hearing, it was also claimed by the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents, that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
