TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (4) TMI 939
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Respondent ORDER [Order Per Ms. Sulekha Beevi, C.S.] 1. The above appeal is filed against rejection of refund claim. 2. The appellants are manufacturers of sponge iron and are availing the facility of CENVAT credit on capital goods and inputs. A show cause notice dated 05.05.2008 was issued to the appellants alleging irregular credit availed by them to the tune of Rs. 29,69,276/- on boil....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f appellant. The appellant filed cross objections in the said department appeal. While Order-in-Appeal dated 19.11.2009, the Commissioner (Appeals) remanded the matter with regard to demand of Rs. 3,38,749/- to the adjudicating authority. 3. Meanwhile, the appellant had filed refund claim for Rs. 3,38,749/- which was deposited by them during the investigation of the entire demand even before the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....edit of Rs. 3,38,749/- in regard to water treatment plant. 6. On behalf of the appellant, Ld. Counsel Shri B.V. Kumar has filed detailed written submission. It is submitted by him that the issue whether appellants are eligible for credit of Rs. 3,38,749/- availed on water treatment plant is now held in favour of the appellant. The amount sought as refund was actually a pre-deposit made by the app....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e by Ld. Counsel for appellant as well as Ld. AR. At the outset, it has to be stated that the amount of Rs. 3,38,749/- which was availed by the appellant as credit on water treatment has been held to be eligible for credit. The refund claim has been rejected by the department for the reason that the same is hit by unjust enrichment. Undisputedly, the amount has been deposited during the investigat....