TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 966X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Mr. Rama Holla, Supdt. (AR) For the Respondent ORDER Per : S.S GARG Appellants have filed these two appeals against the impugned orders dated 25.3.2019 and 26.3.2019 passed by the Commissioner (A) whereby the Commissioner (A) has rejected the appeals of the appellant. Since the issue involved in both the appeals is identical, therefore, both the appeals are taken up together for discussion and disposal. The details of both the appeals are given herein below: Appeal No. Period of Dispute Refund ST/20636/2019 January to March 2017 ₹ 64,240/- ST/20689/2019 April to June 2017 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n No.12/2013-ST dated 1.7.2013. Aggrieved by the said order, appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (A) who rejected the same. Hence, the present appeal. 3. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant 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 this issue is no more res integra and has been settled in appellant s own cases for the earlier period by this Tribunal vide its Final Order No.20624/2019 and Final Order No.20625/2019 both dated 8.8.2019 wherein the refund has been allowed. He further submitted that the issues involved in these cases are also ident ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns of Para 3(III)(a) would be applicable only when the assessee has units in both SEZ and DTA whereas in the present case, the appellant has unit only in SEZ and make supply from SEZ to DTA unit and therefore the said condition of Para 3(III)(a) is not applicable in the present case. Further, the ratio of the Adani Powers India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) relied upon by the appellant is also applicable to the facts of the present case because if we apply the rationale of the Adani Powers India Pvt. Ltd. then we will find that there is a marked difference between operation out of a DTA unit and making a supply to DTA. In view of this, I hold that denial of refund to the ST/21646/2018 5 appellant is not sustainable in law and therefore the findings of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
