TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 398X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has been claimed - the Commissioner(Appeals) has wrongly interpreted the condition contained in para 2(e) in isolation without reading the whole sentence and has wrongly allowed the Departmental appeals. Since the appellants have not claimed any CENVAT credit on the amount for which the rebate has been claimed, the impugned orders are not sustainable in law - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - ST/20197/2019-SM, ST/20198/2019-SM, ST/20199/2019-SM - Final Order No. 20520-20522 / 2019 - Dated:- 3-7-2019 - MR. S.S GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER Appearance: Shri Sarvan Kumar, Consultant For the Appellant Shri K.B. Nanaiah, Asst. Commissioner (AR) For the Respondent Per : S.S GARG Appellants have filed these ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s and the Notification No.39/2012 as amended vide Notification No.03/2016, has allowed all the 5 rebate claims by holding that the appellants have complied with the conditions of Notification No.39/2012. Aggrieved by the Order-in-Original, Department filed only three appeals for three quarters before the Commissioner(Appeals) on the ground that the appellant has not fulfilled the condition 2(e) of the Notification No.39/2012 and therefore the appellants are not entitled to the rebate which has already been sanctioned to the appellants. The Commissioner(Appeals) allowed all the three appeals of the Department. 3. Heard both sides and perused the records. 4. The learned consultant appearing for the appellant submits that the impugned or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... claimed any CENVAT credit on Swachch Bharat Cess and no rebate of the same was claimed earlier and therefore the provisions of para 2(e) is not violated. He also submitted that in terms of Notification No.03/2016, Swachch Bharat Cess is also included in terms of Explanation No.1 of Notification No.39/2012-ST for the purpose of claiming rebate. 5. On the other hand, the 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 it is an admitted fact that the appellant has not claimed any CENVAT credit on input and input services on which rebate has been claimed and the original authority while sanctioning the rebate has examined this issue and has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
