9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 1364X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... R) For the Appellant None For the Respondent ORDER Per Bench The facts of the case are that M/s. Les Ateliers De Pondicherry Pvt. Ltd., the respondents herein, are engaged in manufacture of shoe uppers etc. The respondents filed a refund claim for the year 2008-09 for an amount of Rs. 96,73,426/- towards unutilized input service credit under Rule 5 of the CCR 2004 read with Notification No.5/2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ration, but they have filed a combined refund claim for unutilized input service tax credit under Notification No.5/2006-CE (NT) dt. 14.03.2006 read with Rule of the CEnvat Credit Rules, 2004. On appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) vide impugned order dt. 06.07.2011 set aside the order of the original authority, held that respondents are eligible for refund claim, in principle, directed the respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... find much merit in the appeal of the Revenue. The lower appellate authority has analyzed each of the issues one by one and has come to a reasoned finding. The Commissioner (Appeals) has also directed the assessee to file separate refund claims. On the issue of eligibility of various input services which the Revenue has found fault, we find that the matter is now well settled in a number of decisio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
