2021 (3) TMI 768

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... atives for the Respondent ORDER The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order where the refund claim filed was rejected holding time barred. 2. The facts of the case are that in December, 2013 an audit was conducted at the premises of the appellant and it was pointed out that they are not entitled to take Cenvat credit on outdoor catering service, therefore, on pointed out by the audit .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... time limit prescribed under Section 11B of the act are applicable to the facts. The Ld. Counsel has relied on the decisions in the cases of M/s Capro Engineering India Pvt Ltd. V. C.C.E. & S.T., Indore - 2017 (1) TMI 80 -CESTAT New Delhi and Dollar Co. Pvt. Ltd V. Commissioner of C.Ex., Chennai, - 2008 (230) E.L.T. 313 (Tri. Chennai). 4. On the other hand, Ld. AR for the Revenue submits that it .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ppellant and on the basis of that objection they reversed the Cenvat credit but no protest has been lodged by the appellant and they have also not asked for issuance of any show cause notice from the department. As audit team raised the objection, the appellant reversed the said amount, the matter ends. Later on, after almost three years they filed refund claim saying that the said amount is to tr .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X