TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (6) TMI 37
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....- For the Respondent ORDER Appellant has filed these two appeals against the common impugned order dated 30.09.2014 whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected the appeal of the appellant upholding the order-in-original. Since the issue in both the appeals is identical therefore both the appeals are being disposed of by the common order. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the CCR read with Notification No. 05/2006 CE (NT) dated 14.3.2006. The adjudicating authority after following the due process of law, in the order-in-original has rejected the refund claim of Rs. 1,30,679/- and Rs. 63,313/- being the ineligible credit availed by the appellant. 3. Aggrieved by the order-in-original, the appellant filed two appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) who vid....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mount of refund disallowed is Rs. 1,30,679/- for the period April 2012 to June 2012 out of which refund claim of Rs. 1,18,897/- was disallowed in respect of input services wherein invoices were addressed to the Head Office instead of factory and refund of Rs. 7,753/- was disallowed in respect of input services not bearing service tax registration No. or valid registration No. of service provider a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e services rendered to the said factory of the appellant and there is no dispute on the receipt of services by the factory of the appellant and the use of the services in or in relation to the manufacture of the export goods by the appellant. He further submitted that the substantive benefits of CENVAT credit cannot be denied to the appellant on procedural grounds. In support of his submission, he....