2021 (3) TMI 768

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Mr. Bhasha Ram, Authorised Representatives for the Respondent ORDER The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order where the refund claim filed was rejected holding time barred. 2. The facts of the case are that in December, 2013 an audit was conducted at the premises of the appellant and it was pointed out that they are not entitled to take Cenvat credit on outdoor catering servic....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....deposited by the appellant by mistake and no time limit prescribed under Section 11B of the act are applicable to the facts. The Ld. Counsel has relied on the decisions in the cases of M/s Capro Engineering India Pvt Ltd. V. C.C.E. & S.T., Indore - 2017 (1) TMI 80 -CESTAT New Delhi and Dollar Co. Pvt. Ltd V. Commissioner of C.Ex., Chennai, - 2008 (230) E.L.T. 313 (Tri. Chennai). 4. On the other....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e course of audit an objection was raised to the appellant and on the basis of that objection they reversed the Cenvat credit but no protest has been lodged by the appellant and they have also not asked for issuance of any show cause notice from the department. As audit team raised the objection, the appellant reversed the said amount, the matter ends. Later on, after almost three years they filed....