TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (7) TMI 1052
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....,889/-, Rs. 2,76,403/- and Rs. 6,30,028/- should be recovered from the present appellant with applicable interest. Since the issue involved in all the three appeals is identical and all the three appeals have been disposed of by a common impugned order, therefore, all the three appeals are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellants are a 100% EOU engaged in the manufacture and export of Wiring Harness etc. falling under Chapter Heading 85 of the First Schedule of CETA, 1985. They filed three refund claims for different periods for refund of accumulated/unutilized CENVAT credit of service tax paid on input services under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules and Notification No.27/2012-C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r erroneous refund, the Department should have initiated the proceedings by issuing a show-cause notice for recovery of irregular credit under Section 11A read with Rule 14 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 which is altogether different issue from the present matter of dispute in the impugned show-cause notices. For this submission, he relied upon the following decisions:- i. Grasim Industries Ltd Vs. CCE Bhopal [2011 (271) ELT 164 (SC)] ii. TTG Industries Vs. CCE, Raipur [2014 (303) ELT 133 (Tri. Del.)] iii. Dupen Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE&ST [2014 (301) ELT 344 (Tri.)] iv. Axwel India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Bangalore [2009 (246) ELT 358 (Tri.)] 4.2. He further submitted that when the admissibility of credit was not taken up as an issue i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2004 would be the invoice or bill issued by are ISD under Rule 4A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 and in the present case, the appellant has furnished to the Department invoice of ISD vide letter dated 11/04/2016 and 26/04/2016 and the same has been verified by the Range which recommended for refund. 5. On the other hand, the learned AR defended the impugned order and submitted that the adjudicating authority had rejected the refund claims for non-submission of documents and held that the credit availed without producing the relevant invoices shall be ineligible in terms of Rule 9 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. Learned AR further submitted that allowing recredit in CENVAT credit amounts to sanctioning the claim and allowing the appellant to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Tribunal. Therefore the only issue to be examined is whether the credit was accumulated or whether it could have been utilized or not and whether the refund was admissible under Notification No. 5/2006. However, even admissibility of credit itself cannot be disputed now, in view of the Notification No. 7/2010-C.E. (N.T.) dated 27-2-2010, whereby the words "used in" have been replaced by the words "used in or in relation to" by amending Notification No. 5/2006-C.E. (N.T.) This amendment was given retrospective effect by Finance Act, 2010. Therefore by admission of the Revenue that the services have been used in relation to manufacture and in view of the amendment, the admissibility of CENVA T Credit cannot be disputed. As regards claim ....