2021 (11) TMI 893

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., Advocates for the appellant. Shri Ravi Kapoor, Authorised Representative for the respondent/Department. ORDER The issue involved in this appeal is whether the Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected the refund claim in accordance with law. 2. The brief facts are that the appellant is a manufacturer of cement. In the normal course of business, they took cenvat credit on input, input servi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....wability of the credit in dispute. 5. Accordingly, the appellant on being successful in appeal applied for refund of the cenvat credit reversed earlier of Rs. 16,91,290/-, on 11.05.2017. 6. The said refund claim was rejected vide order-in-original dated 9.8.2017 passed by the Asstt. Commissioner, observing that the demand was dropped vide order-in-original dated 30.11.2005. It is observed th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....g the rejection of refund claim. 7. Assailing the impugned order-in-appeal, ld. Counsel states that under the facts and circumstances, the Department being in appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), the refund claim would have been pre-mature, as first appeal in Revenue matters is as an extension of the adjudicating proceedings, as the powers of the Commissioner (Appeals) are co-terminous wit....