2015 (5) TMI 1145

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Shri H.V. Ghirnikar, Consultant, for the Respondent. ORDER Revenue is in appeal against the impugned order dated 2-4-2014 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Raipur-I. 2. The brief facts leading to this present appeal are as follows :- 2.1 The respondent herein is a manufacturer of iron and steel products. Excess payment of central excise duty has made by ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... January to 15th January, 2013. The refund application filed by the respondent was rejected by the adjudicating authority vide order dated 26-11-2013. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the respondent preferred appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Raipur which was disposed of, by holding that the appellant is eligible to the refund, subject to verification of non-availment o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....contra, the ld. Chartered Accountant Shri H.V. Ghirnikar, appearing for the respondent submitted that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). He further submitted that so far as the eligibility to the refund is concerned, the impugned order has clearly held in their favour. However, the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has directed verification of the fact by the appropr....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....eals) held that the excess central excise duty paid by the respondent is eligible for refund. Claim of refund on account of excess payment of duty, can only be verified from the Cenvat records maintained at the consignee's end. Thus, I am of the opinion that findings in the impugned order regarding admissibility of the refund claim, subject to non-availment of Cenvat credit at the consignee's end,....