2016 (2) TMI 949

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ing from hundred percent EOU to EPCG Scheme and had debited an amount of Rs. 28,97,553/- towards payment of duty on indigenous capital goods and raw materials lying in the stock on the date of debonding and partly by way of the challan ER 7 rightly under the provisions of Rule 11(3) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Of the 4th and on subsequent insistence by revenue deposited the said amount and again by cash and thereafter applied for refund. In the circumstances whether the appellant is entitled for refund. 4.  In the appeal filed by the Revenue, the issue is in view of the categorical findings recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals) that the appellant enable to pay the duty under Rule 11(3) to the Cenvat Credit is whether the Learned ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... by challan dated 26-12-2007 and thereafter vide letter dated 28-12-2007 the Deputy Commissioner issued 'no dues certificate' to the competent authority of Noida Special Economic Zone with respect to the debonding. 6.  The appellant on being so advised filed an application for refund of the said amount of Rs. 28,97,553/- vide the letter dated 15 February, 2008. Pursuant thereto defect memo dated 27-2-2008 was issued in response thereto the appellant resubmitted the refund claim the documents as directed on 25-4-2008. The SCN dated 30-3-2009 was issued alleging that the Cenvat credit lying in the account on the date of debonding lapsed under Rule 11(3) of CCR and further refund appeared to be limited to Rs. 25,38,551/-, it also appea....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d present Appeal Number E/1573/2010. The assessee appeared before the Adjudicating Authority for compliance of the remand direction and in pursuance thereto vide OIO dated 24-2-2011, the refund was rejected in view of the revenue appeal pending before this Tribunal. Being aggrieved the assessee again preferred appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) who have vide the impugned order dated 31-5-2011 rejected the appeal upholding the order of rejection. 7.  Being aggrieved the appellant-assessee filed present Appeal Number E/2074/2011. 8.  Having considered the rival contentions I find that the revenue have not disputed the finding of the Learned Commissioner (Appeals) upholding the contention that the appellant was entitled to ut....