TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 1245X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by way of remand. - E/21227/2015-DB, E/21228/2015-DB, E/21229/2015-DB, E/21230/2015-DB, E/21231/2015-DB, E/21232/2015-DB, E/21244/2015-DB - Final Order No. 22034-22040 / 2017 - Dated:- 29-8-2017 - Shri S.S Garg, Judicial Member And Shri Ashok K. Arya, Technical Member For the Appellant : Mr. M. S. Nagaraja Advocate T. Rajeswara Sastry Associates For the Respondent : Mr. N. Jagadish, AR ORDER Per : S.S GARG The appellants have filed six appeals against the common impugned order dated 25.2.2015 passed by the Commissioner (A) whereby the Commissioner (A) has rejected the appeals of the appellant. Against the impugned order, the Department has also filed an appeal against the findings of the Commissioner (A) wherei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the final products for export. Accordingly, the inputs and the input services on which CENVAT credit was taken are eligible for credit in terms of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. Because of substantial production having been exported under LUT, there was accumulation of CENVAT credit. Hence the Applications were submitted for refund of the unutilized CENVAT credit. 3.1 The adjudicating authority issued SCNs, adjudicated the claims and rejected 2 claims for the period from April 2012 to June 2012 and July 2012 to September 2012 as barred by limitation and the remaining 4 claims on grounds of not submitting the required documents for verification. On Appeal, the ld Commissioner (Appeals-I), Bangalore has passed common Order-in-Appeal No 8 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1/- 4. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without considering the reply to the show-cause notice filed by the appellant along with the documents. He further submitted that the claims for refund of unutilized CENVAT credit in appeal No. E/2130/2015 and E/21321/2015 for the period from April 2012 to September 2012 were held by the adjudicating authority as being barred by limitation. But, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the finding of the adjudicating authority insofar as limitation is concerned and has held that the claims were not barred by li ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rtified AREs-1 iv) Copies of Shipping Bills (EP copies) evidencing export of goods. v) Bank Realization Certificates(E - BRC) vi) Excel sheet showing the details of exports along with E-BRC reference. vii) Copies of Bills of Lading viii) Detailed worksheet/statement of the refund claim. ix) Copies of Annexure- 10 showing details of CENVAT Credit availed on inputs and input services. x) Attested copies of ER-1 Return for the month of October-2012 to December 2012. xi) Original copies of export documents with a request to return them after verification (original copies have been since returned after verification) Note: a) SI No (iii) to (viii) are filed together in spiral bound booklets en ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cuments is wrong and not sustainable. The learned counsel further submitted that the appellant is ready for the verification of each and every document in his possession if the matter is remanded back to the original authority. 6. On the other hand, the learned AR defended the impugned order and submitted that the refunds were rejected as the appellants have failed to furnish the documents in support of their claims. He further submitted that the findings of the Commissioner (A) that limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 would not be applicable for refund claim filed under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules (CCR), 2004 and accordingly not time barred by relying upon the Karnataka High Court s decision in the case of mPo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty keeping in view the various decisions of the Tribunal will decide the refund claim of the appellant. The original authority shall dispose of the refund claims within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. It is expected from the appellant to render proper assistance to the original authority for verification of the documents as the documents are voluminous in nature. With these observations, we allow four appeals of the appellants by way of remand and one appeal of the department is also allowed and set aside the observation of the learned Commissioner (A) with regard to the aspect of limitation. ( Operative portion of the Order was pronounced in Open Court on 29/08/2017 ) - - TaxTMI - T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
