TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (10) TMI 787
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rant of refund and partially rejected the refund claims on various grounds. The details of all the four appeals are given herein below:- Appeal No. Period Total refund claimed (Rs.) Refund sanctioned in the OIA (Rs.) Dispute in the present appeal (Rs.) E/21754/2014 April to September 2009 46,99,463 18,57,547 25,85,879 E/21755/2014 October to December 2009 19,16,862 7,09,519 10,29,874 E/21783/2014 January to March 2010 57,30,561 10,81,845 46,48,716 E/21753/2014 April to June 2010 23,88,758 9,56,486 14,32,272 3. Since the issues in all the appeals are identical, for the sake of convenience, the facts of the appeal No.E/21754/2014 are taken. 4. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellant is a 100% E....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....il CENVAT credit were irregular. After following due process of law, the Assistant Commissioner rejected the entire refund claim vide order dt. 24/06/2013. Again the appellant filed the appeal before the Commissioner(Appeals) and the Commissioner(Appeals) vide the impugned order dt. 11/02/2014 partially rejected the refund claim to the tune of Rs. 25,85,879/- on the basis of irregular invoices. Hence the present appeals. 5. Heard both sides and perused records. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order passed in these appeals by the Commissioner(Appeals) are not sustainable in law the same have been passed by misconstruing the provisions of the law and by ignoring the binding judicial precedent of the higher j....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ovision of output service / manufacture and she also submitted that the substantive benefit of the credit cannot be denied on mere procedural / hyper technical objections. She also submitted that the learned Commissioner(Appeals) has wrongly held that the invoices are not addressed to the appellant and the document do not contain the specific information as required under Rule 4A. She further submitted that the invoices were always raised in the name of M/s. Tebma Shipyards Ltd. and all the invoices submitted for refund are in relation to services utilised in their EOU Malphe Unit for the export of final product and all the invoices contained respective criteria indicating the services utilised for the particular export. In support of her s....