2021 (1) TMI 180

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Mr. Dharmender Singh, Superintendent Authorised Representative for the Respondent ORDER These Appeals have been filed impugning the common order dated 27.8.2018 in two Appeals passed by the Commissioner (Appeals-III), CST&CX, Mumbai by which the learned Commissioner while partly granting Refund under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 in both the Appeals denied the refund to the extent o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ating the amount of refund was not properly applied as it ought to have taken into account the turnover of its Mumbai Office also while calculating the total turnover since the appellant have taken centralized registration at Mumbai; (iii) the maximum amount of eligible refund cannot be greater than the unutilized Cenvat Credit for the quarter; and (iv) the value of services are not paid to the ve....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....discussing the reasoning, evidences etc. the learned commissioner in paragraphs 7.3.2, 7.3.3, 7.4.1 and 7.4.2 of the impugned order rejected the refunds on the above counts. He further submits that although by way of evidence/ tables/invoices the appellants tried to establish their point, the same was not considered by the learned commissioner while rejecting part of the refund claims. According t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ive for the Revenue and perused the case records including the written submissions and the decisions cited by the respective sides. I find force in the contentions raised by the learned counsel. There is no discussion about the contentions raised by the appellants and in the impugned order there are no proper reasonings/ findings as to how the part of the refund claim was disallowed. From the impu....