TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 485X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ER1 returns is only a procedural lapse and cannot be a ground to reject the refund claim. The impugned order is not sustainable in law and the same is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the original authority to examine all the documents which have been filed by the appellant in support of his refund claim application - appeal allowed by way of remand. - E/20656/2019-SM - Final Order No. 20626/2019 - Dated:- 8-8-2019 - SHRI S.S GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER Shri Mahesh B. Raichandani, Advocate For the Appellant Shri Gopakumar, Jt. Commissioner (AR) For the Respondent ORDER Per: S.S GARG The present appeal is directed against the impugned or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without properly appreciating the facts and the law. He further submitted that the learned Commissioner(Appeals) has overruled all the submissions made by the appellant and has also overlooked the case laws cited by them. He further submitted that the impugned order is violative of the principles of natural justice as no reasoning has been given for rejection of the appeal. He further submitted that in the impugned order, the Commissioner(Appeals) has held that (a) the sanctity of the amount of refund claimed by the appellants is not fortified; (b) the appellants have not enclosed any documents in support of their claim for refund; (c) the claim for r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... claim straightaway without examining the documents submitted by them. he further submitted that the appellant has in fact submitted the details of the amount claimed as refund, copies of ER-1 returns, copy of the CENVAT credit register which is required for processing the refund claim. He further submitted that the refund has also been rejected on the ground that unutilized balance of CENVAT credit was not disclosed in ER1 returns. To counter this finding, the learned counsel submitted that they have not disclosed the balance of CENVAT credit in ER1 returns under a bona fide belief i.e. the credit cannot be utilized for payment of output liability and hence there is no requirement for disclosure of the same in the return. Further non-disclo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inivasa Hair Industries Vs. CCE, Chennai-II [2016-TIOL-1203-CESTAT-MAD] wherein it was held that in cases where an assessee is unable to utilize the credit for due to closure of their business or any other circumstances beyond their control, law cannot be interpreted to cause absurdity or impossibility. 5. On the other hand, the learned AR defended the impugned order and submitted that the appellant failed to mention the provision under which they have filed the refund claim and also failed to annex the required documents to process the claim and therefore both the authorities have rightly rejected the refund claim. 6. After considering the submissions of both sides and material on record, I find that the show- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
