TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 510X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubmitted by the appellants have no co-relation with the invoices - Held that: - initially the appellant were known as M/s Hemscott India Pvt. Ltd. and with effect from 19.3.2008, the name of the appellant company has been changed to the present name. As the invoices were issued in the earlier name of the company and whereas the some payments were received the new name of the company. In that circumstances, it cannot be held that FIRC are not co relatable - the matter needs examination at the end of the adjudicating authority for correlation of the invoices issued and payment received by them - matter on remand. Refund claim - denial on the ground that Invoices are not addressed to the registered premise of the appellant and invoices were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .) Invoices are not issued in the name of the appellant for Cenvat credit ₹ 76,311/- 2. Heard the parties. 3. Considering the fact, it is an admitted position that the appellant has complied with the conditions of the Notification No.5/2006 read with Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and the refund claims are admissible but on the grounds mentioned in paragraph 1 refund claims have been rejected. 4. I have gone through the case records and the case relied upon by the appellant, refund claim cannot be denied on the ground that the Cenvat credit has not shown in their ST-3 returns. The said view has been affirmed by this Tribunal in the case of Broadcom India Research Pvt. Ltd. Ltd. Vs. CST, Banagalore - 2016 (42) STR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of refund for the period 16-5-2008 to June, 2008 that the ST3 return for June, 2008 did not show any unutilized balance of Cenvat credit, it is to be made clear that refund is to be granted on the basis of the Cenvat credit available in the Cenvat Credit Account and not on the basis of the closing balance of Cenvat credit shown in ST-3 Return. Further the appellant submitted revised return showing correct closing balance of Cenvat credit but the same was ignored by the Adjudicating Authority. In this regard, we find that in the case of Jagdamba Polymers Ltd. v. C.C.E., Ahmedabad - 2010 (253) E.L.T. 626 (Tri.-Ahmd.) it has been held by CESTAT that omission to reflect the balance in ER 1 return is only a procedural error for which credit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inadmissible, no action has been initiated for recovering the remaining amount of ₹ 11,68,565/-as noted earlier. It has been held in the case of Hindustan Zinc Ltd. v. C.C.E., Jaipur II - 2009 (15) S.T.R . 633 (Tri.-Del.) = 2007 (220) E.L.T . 410 (Tri.) that adjustment of refund claim in another pending case is not sustainable. In that case, the Department had adjusted the amount against another case which was pending before Tribunal whereas the appellant obtained stay order. In the case of Metal Forgings v. UOI - 2002 (146) E.L.T. 241 (S.C.), the Hon ble Supreme Court held that show cause notice is a mandatory requirement for raising demand and communications, orders, suggestions or advices from Department cannot be deemed to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
