2017 (10) TMI 1332

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... llant- Shri K. Veerabhadra Reddy, JC (AR) For the Respondent- Shri Harish Bindumadhavan, Advocate Per Bench M/s.Visual Graphics, the respondents herein, are provider of services under the category of Information Technology Software Service. Appellant had filed refund claim of Rs. 2,50,07,166/- for the period April 2012 to June 2012 under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Original authority r .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ses is sine qua non for refund of unutilized cenvat credit. He submits that the matter may be remanded back for consideration of all factors relating to eligibility of refund including merits. 4. On going through the case laws cited by Ld. Advocate supra, we find that issue stands settled in favour of appellant. With respect to Ld. AR s plea for remand of the matter, we also note that original au .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X