2017 (10) TMI 510

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... (2.) Input services, on which Cenvat credit amounting to Rs. 1,28,292/- is claimed during Oct. to Dec. 2008, was received in Mumbai Office but no output service was provided from such office. (3.) FIRC submitted by the appellants have no co-relation with the invoices. (4.) Invoices are not addressed to the registered premise of the appellant. (5.) Invoices are not issued in the name of the appellant for Cenvat credit Rs. 76,311/- 2. Heard the parties. 3. Considering the fact, it is an admitted position that the appellant has complied with the conditions of the Notification No.5/2006 read with Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and the refund claims are admissible but on the grounds mentioned in paragraph 1 refund claims....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tentions of the appellant. In view of concession by the appellant that it was not pressing for refund of the credit taken prior to 16-52008, we are not dwelling upon the issue of admissibility or otherwise of refund of Cenvat credit taken, prior to 16-5-2008, or upon the issue of classification. As regards the ground of rejection of refund for the period 16-5-2008 to June, 2008 that the ST3 return for June, 2008 did not show any unutilized balance of Cenvat credit, it is to be made clear that refund is to be granted on the basis of the Cenvat credit available in the Cenvat Credit Account and not on the basis of the closing balance of Cenvat credit shown in ST-3 Return. Further the appellant submitted revised return showing correct closing b....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....isallowing the same requires quasi-judicial process involving issuance of show cause notice followed by a speaking order. In this case, it has obviously not been done. Indeed, we find that even after adjusting the amount of refund of Rs. 56,58,994/- towards the Cenvat credit amount of Rs. 68,27,559/- summarily held to be inadmissible, no action has been initiated for recovering the remaining amount of Rs. 11,68,565/-as noted earlier. It has been held in the case of Hindustan Zinc Ltd. v. C.C.E., Jaipur II - 2009 (15) S.T.R. 633 (Tri.-Del.) = 2007 (220) E.L.T. 410 (Tri.) that adjustment of refund claim in another pending case is not sustainable. In that case, the Department had adjusted the amount against another case which was pending befor....