9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 1348X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctual backdrop of the case is that appellant is a trader and exporter of Raw Indian Sugar having registered office at Mumbai and branch office at Gurgaon. It had exported sugar classified under Chapter 17 during the period April 2014 to July 2014 and claimed refund of Rs. 28,43,494/- against unutilised Cenvat Credit from the jurisdictional authority of the respondent department at Mumbai manually on 20-04-2015. It had received a deficiency memo dated 06-08-2015 and 09-09-2015 which were duly complied on 12-08-2015 and 17-09-2015. Vide order-in-original no. SKS/R-108/2015 dated 30-10-2015, the appellant's claim was rejected primarily on the ground that present claim was beyond the authority and jurisdiction of Mumbai besides the fact that so ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 30 Cestat, Mumbai he argued that inputs received by the appellant and utilisation was not disputed and the same is admissable even without registration of the unit under Finance Act 1994 for which rejection of invoices raised on another address which is not included in the registration certificate would not sustain. Further citing the judgement reported in 2017 (12) TMI 945 Cestat (Bangalore) and in 2019 Cestat, Mumbai Cited Supra, he pointed out that it was the duty of the original authority to send the refund claim to the concerned Commissionerate which was competent to sanction the refund instead of dismissing the claim on narrow technical consideration for which he prays to set aside the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). 4. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le and the same also found approval by the respondent department itself that had issued notification no. 41/2012. Therefore, the legality of the order concerning non-maintainability of the refund claim at Mumbai and its confirmation by the Commissioner (Appeals) is unsustainable. 6. In the order-in-original, other grounds of rejection of refund were also dealt with out of which appellant had accepted the time barred claim of Rs. 43,399/- which has been abandoned by it as revealed from page no. 17(1) of its appeal memo. Concerning the rest 3 rejection of refund of Rs. 188310/- Rs. 1,24,301/-Rs. 1,08,915/- on the ground of mismatch of invoices/improper invoices etc., appellant had put forth its stand unsuccessfully before the Commissioner (A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
