2018 (6) TMI 437

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... K.P. Muralidharan, AC (AR) for the Respondent ORDER The issue arising for consideration in all these appeals being the same, they were heard together and are disposed by this common order. 2.   Brief facts are that the appellants are 100% EOU and are providing output service to foreign clients. They availed CENVAT credit on various input services and filed refund claim under Rule 5 o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ieved by the second and third issues, appellant is now before the Tribunal. 3.   On behalf of the appellant, ld. counsel Ms. Sweta Giridhar submitted that the issue whether credit is admissible even though the premises is not registered is settled by the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. CESTAT, Chennai - 2017 (3) GSTL 45 (Mad.).....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he assessee is eligible for credit even though the premises is not registered with the department is settled by the decision of the jurisdictional High Court as cited supra. Following the same, we hold that the disallowance of credit and rejection of refund on this ground is unjustified. We hold that the appellant is eligible for credit/refund and the rejection on this ground is set aside 7.&nbsp....