2017 (9) TMI 28

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... R. Subramaniyan, AC (AR), for the Respondent. ORDER The brief facts of the case are that the appellants, an 100% EOU, manufacturers of cut and polished Granite monuments, filed refund claims under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, read with Notification No. 5/2006-C.E. (N.T.), dated 14-3-2006, for refund of unutilized Cenvat credit lying in their books of account. Three such different claims .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... After due process of law, the original authority while sanctioning an amount of Rs. 55,900/-, Rs. 48,731/- and Rs. 84,191/- , however rejected the claim of the appellants on "Manpower Supply" on the ground that appellants on their own volition had apportioned certain amount of service tax initially claimed by them under the head "Telephone and Erection" under a totally new head "Manpower Supply Se .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... very correctly rejected the claims of refund of service tax initially claimed by the appellants under the head "Telephone and Erection", when the appellants have subsequently changed the head to new "Manpower Supply" service on their own volition that after conclusion of the appeal proceedings, which by the act of not challenging it, they are deemed to have accepted the same. In the event, both t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X