TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 565X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he authorities on the ground that the appellants have not debited the CENVAT account before filing the refund claim which is in violation of Para 2(h) of the Notification No. 27/2012 dated 18.06.2012 is not sustainable in law in view of the judgment of the Mumbai Bench in the case of SANDOZ PVT LTD VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BELAPUR [ 2015 (10) TMI 882 - CESTAT MUMBAI] the CENVAT credit was debited in the present case on 31.03.2018 vide Voucher No. 26 which is also placed on record but the same was not considered by both the authorities. The appellant is entitled to the refund claim to the extent of ₹ 5,13,086/- but remand the matter to the original authority with a direction to verify the documents pertaining to rever ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aration of non-carry forward of CENVAT credit to Tran-1 etc. The original authority vide the impugned order dated 08.06.2018 rejected the refund claim. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who also rejected the appeal of the appellant. 3. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without properly appreciating the facts and the law and binding judicial precedents. She further submitted that non-submission of duly signed ledger extract is just a procedural lapse and does not affect the eligibility of claiming the refund. She furthe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e reversed the refund claim amount but both the authorities have mentioned one Voucher No. (24) dated 31.03.2018 which is not related with this refund claim at all. She further submitted that this discrepancy of co-relation of Voucher can be verified by the original authority if the matter is remanded to the original authority. 5. On the other hand, Learned AR defended the impugned order. 6. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the material on record, I find that as far as refund of ₹ 5,13,086/- is concerned, the appellant is entitled to the same as per the CENVAT credit balance at the time of filing the refund claim which both the authorities have also fairly conceded that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
