9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (9) TMI 1152X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ravi Shankar For The Appellant. ORDER: B.S.V. Murthy In all the appeals issue involved is same and all the appeals have been filed against common orders. Therefore all the appeals are taken together and a common order is passed. 2. Six refund claims under consideration are for the period from 20/02/2005 to 31/05/2007 under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. One of the rea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... maintained records in erstwhile format of RG23A Part-II and the copy of the same was obtained. It was also observed that appellants had not filed monthly returns as prescribed under Rule 9(7) of CENVAT Credit Rules. It was also observed that ER2 returns were not correctly filed and there were omissions during the period. However, we find that none of these is a requirement in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the authority to say what exactly the omission and why he is not able to verify the correctness of the claim. In the absence of any clear cut conclusion that CENVAT credit was availed wrongly or taken wrongly or the claim that it could not be used was not correct, we consider that rejection on this ground is not valid and this matter requires reconsideration. There are also other ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n fact it was maintained in that part, we would like to say that such a record has to be accepted since this was the format prescribed by the Government in terms of statute. In view of the above observations, the impugned orders are set aside and the matters are remanded to the original adjudicating authority to decide the refund claims afresh taking note of our observations hereinabove and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
