2018 (7) TMI 621

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pellant Shri R. Subramaniam, AC (AR) for the Respondent ORDER Brief facts are that the appellants are engaged in providing consulting engineering service. They filed refund claim under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 for the unutilized credit. Show cause notice was issued proposing to reject the refund claim on the following four grounds:- The assessee has not filed declarati....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....llant is now before the Tribunal. 3. The ld. counsel Shri M. Kannan submitted the details of the relevant claims which is as under:- S. No. Period of claim Amount claimed as refund 1. July 2014 to Sep. 2014 Rs.10,76,487/- 2. Jan. 2015 to March 2015 Rs.8,56,326/-   3.1 He submitted that the adjudicating authority had considered all the grounds in the adjudic....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tment has not filed any appeal against this before the Commissioner (Appeal) but the Commissioner (Appeals) has taken up all these grounds and has erroneously held against the appellant even though there is no appeal filed by the department. 3.2 With regard to the ground for rejection that the premises is not registered and therefore credit is not eligible, which is the sole ground on which the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... refund on three grounds are not legal and proper, the Commissioner (Appeals) has traversed into these grounds and held against the appellant which is not proper. The department having not filed any appeal against the Order-in-Original, I find force in the contention of the ld. counsel. Thus, the rejection of refund as held by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order on the three grounds i....