2018 (8) TMI 1680

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... dated 18.06.2012. The period involved is from April, 2012 to March 2014. The refund claim made by the appellant of Rs. 7,71,820/- relates to the un-utilized input credit, which is as under:- Sl.No. Period of claim Claim filed on Refund claimed Refund sanctioned provisionally OIO No. 1 April '12 to June'12 04.03.2012 139907 111925 73 - 80/2016 dt.12.7.2016 2 July''12 to Sep.'12 04.03.2012 86617 69294 -do- 3 Oct.'12 to Dec.'12 04.03.2012 76529 61223 -do- 4 Jan.'13 to March'13 29.12.2012 79361 63489 -do- 5 April'13 to June'13 27.06.2014 98491 78793 -do- 6 July '13 to Sep.'13 30.09.2014 84789 67831 -do- 7 Oct.' 13....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ected for non-compliance with the provisions of Section 11 B of CEA, 1944, made applicable to service tax, to which the appellant has explained in detail in its reply as to its eligibility for refund. After considering the plea and based on the personal hearing, the adjudicating authority passed the OIO dated 12.07.2016 whereby he has rejected all the refund claims as time barred. Having not been able to convince the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals-II) in appeal, who vide the common order dated 18.11.2016 rejected the appeal, the appellant is assailing the same in these appeals. 4. Heard the Ld. Counsel for the appellant, Shri G. Natarajan and perused the materials placed in the appeal paper book. During the course of the argumen....