TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (8) TMI 1278
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....RDER Per: S.S GARG The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dt 20/12/2017 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal of the Department and held that the refund of Rs. 2,48,383/- was erroneously sanctioned by the lower authority and the same is liable to be recovered from the appellant along with interest. 2. Briefly the facts of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd rejecting refund amounting to Rs. 1,34,154/-. Thereafter the order of the original authority was reviewed by the Department and the Department challenged the decision of the original authority with regard to sanction of refund of Rs. 2,24,743/- and Rs. 23,640/- relating to two invoices. The details of invoices are given herein below:- Sl. No. of CA certificate Invoice No./date Amount Date o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2 is eligible but the same will be eligible only in the quarter in which the payment is made and not prior to that. He further submitted that the Commissioner(Appeals) has failed to appreciate that under Rule 4(7) read with Rule 9 of CCR, CENVAT credit is available on or after the date of payment in a challan and in the present case, the appellant has discharged the service tax under reverse charg....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... on 27/06/2012. The Commissioner(Appeals) has admitted that the appellant is eligible to avail the CENVAT credit during the period April-June 2012 and not prior to that. Learned consultant submitted that this is a technical objection raised by the Commissioner(Appeals) and substantive right cannot be denied on the basis of technical objections. In support of this submission, he relied upon the fol....