TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (12) TMI 814
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is filed against Order-in-Appeal No.21/Kol-VII/2011 dated 07.02.2011 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise,(Appeal-I), Kolkata. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the Appellant are manufacturer of natural silk fabrics falling under Chapter Sub-Heading No.50072090 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The Appellant also exported the said manufactured goods. On export of the said sil....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Order, the Appellant had filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The ld. Commissioner (Appeals) had upheld the Order dated 29.03.2010 and rejected the appeal filed by the Appellant. Hence the present Appeal. 3. Ld. CA for the Appellant has submitted that the goods manufactured had been exported from their factory and various input services were used in the manufacture and export of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....roduced all the documents relating to input services and its use in or in relation to manufacture and/or export of the goods and also cited various case laws in support of their claim that they were eligible to cash refund of the CENVAT Credit. The ld. CA further submitted that on similar circumstances, this Tribunal, vide Order No.A-63-64/KOL/13 dated 11.01.2013, had partly allowed their refund c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tured goods. Consequently, they claimed the cash refund of the CENVAT Credit on input service under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Notification No.05/06-CE (NT) dated 14.03.2006. I find that initially the refund was sanctioned to them after reducing from the initial claim on the ground that certain amount was not admissible to them as refund. Later, it was observed that the docu....