2020 (2) TMI 625

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... manufacturer of medicaments which are mostly exported under bond/LUT without payment of duty as well as with payment of duty under rebate claim. It procures input for such manufacturing @ 12% ad volerm Excise duty while finished goods are cleared marginally to the domestic market @ 6%, besides exports. Due to variation of input and output ratio, there was huge accumulation of input credits even after adjustments towards payment of tax, as the finished goods suffer less duty. Further during the period January, 2012 to March, 2012, appellants sought refund of Rs. 5,25,757/- under Rule 5 of CCR on 19-11-2012 but the same was rejected on the above referred grounds by the adjudicating authority as well as Commissioner (Appeals). The order of re....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ides the assesse for proper filing of refund, and any lapse on the part of the claimant to fulfil the condition should be considered as a removable procedural irregularity and the same not have affected the claim for refund and therefore the order of the Commissioner (appeals) is required to be set aside. 4. In response to such submissions, Learned Authorised Representative for respondent Mr Anil Choudhary argued in support of the reasoning and rationality of the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and drawn attention of this court to the findings in order-In-Original that was accepted by the Commissioner (Appeals) that appellant had also exported finished goods on payment of duty during the relevant period and utilised the Cenvat C....