TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 888X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... therefore, without authority of law and is set aside. - E/85429/2015 - A/91816/2017 - Dated:- 8-9-2017 - Shri C J Mathew, Member (Technical) Ms. Manasi Patil, Advocate - for the appellant Ms. Trupti Chauhan, Assistant Commissioner (AR) - for the respondent ORDER M/s Vithal Corporation Limited is an appeal against order-in-appeal no. PUN-EXCUS-003-APP-109-14-15 dated 21 st November 2014 of Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals) Pune rejecting the refund claim of ₹ 11,46,852 and ₹ 3,95,154 by sanctioning an amount of ₹ 13,12,107 which was, however, transferred to the Consumer Welfare Fund as envisaged in section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944. 2. The genesis of this dispute lies in the demand serve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he other yet pending with the original authority for adjudication. 4. The latter two, according to him, were premature inasmuch as no cause of action had arisen for claiming that refund. Learned Counsel for the appellant admitted to the facts as found by the first appellate authority on these two. There is no doubt that the appellant is entitled to the claim of refund only upon consequence of a decision in these two disputes. Accordingly, the refund claim for ₹ 11,46,852 and ₹ 3,95,154 have been rightly rejected in the impugned order. 5. On the first of the claims, he held that the appellant had failed to discharge its obligation to establish that the amounts debited in the CENVAT credit account had not been passed on to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er dated 2 nd November 2014 was found to indicate the recovery of the said amounts in certain cases from the buyers and that the appellant had failed to demonstrate absorption of this amount through invoices, balance sheet and other financial records. In doing so, the first appellate authority claimed the support of the decision handed down by the Tribunal in Commissioner of Central Excise, Nashik v. Crompton Greaves Ltd [2009 (246) ELT 409 (Tri-Mumbai)] which was stated to have followed the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Solar Pesticides Pvt Ltd [2000 (116) ELT 401 (SC)]. 8. The appellant had submitted evidence in the form of certificate of Chartered Accountant for not having passed on the burden of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
