TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (6) TMI 198
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Mr. N. Jagadish, A.R. For the Respondent ORDER Per : S. S. Garg The appellants have filed these four appeals aggrieved by the impugned order dated 6.11.2013 whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) has disposed of four appeals of the appellant. Since the issue involved in all the four appeals is identical, therefore all the four appeals are being disposed of by the present order. 2. Briefly the fact....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ning the refund. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Assistant commissioner, the Revenue filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) challenging the orders-of the original authority on the ground that while sanctioning the refund claim the said authority had not given any findings as to how the inputs declared by the assessee have been used in the manufacture of final product exported. The Com....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ets etc. He further submitted that the appellants had exported their final products. Thereafter claimed refund of unutilised CENVAT credit under Rule 5 and the Original authority after satisfying himself that the inputs in respect of which CENVAT credit has been availed has been used in the manufacture of final product, sanctioned the refund claim in terms of Rule 5 of CCR. He further submitted th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the parties and perusal of the material on record, I find that the Commissioner (Appeals) in para 8.3. of the impugned order has observed that the original authority has failed to establish the main parameter of whether CENVAT credit on which refund has been sanctioned related to the inputs used in the manufacture of goods exported. Further it will be relevant here to reproduce the complete para 8....