TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (3) TMI 64
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....als) has upheld the rejection of the refund claims filed by the appellant in terms of Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 on the basis of order-in-appeal No. PVNS/341-342/Appeals Thane/TH/2017-18/3054 dated 28.03.2018. 2.1 Appellant has preferred two refund claims under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules. The details of the refund claims and their disposal are as follows:- Particulars Refund Claimed Refund allowed Refund disallowed Order-in- Original No. Order-in- Appeal No. April 2012 to June 2012 8,18,218 - 8,18,218 R/138/PK/201 8-19 dated 25.02.2019 PVNS/113- 114/Appeals Thane/TH/201 9-20 dated 17.09.2019 July 2012 to Sept. 2012 97,615 - 97,615 R/138/PK/201 8-19 dated 25.02.2019 PVNS/11....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... claim was liable to be rejected outright due to inherent deficiency in the form of non-submission of the documents and non-compliance of the directions of the Commissioner (Appeals) as contained in the Order in Appeal. However, in the interest of natural justice, opportunities were given to the claimant to make available the necessary documents required for processing this refund claim. As the matter cannot be kept pending indefinitely, I proceed to decide the eligibility of refund claim on the basis of available documents and the Instructions contained in the Order in Appeal of Commissioner (Appeals). 7. As regards the entitlement of refund amounting to Rs.97,615/- as per claimant's letter dated 15.01.2019, it is observed tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... granted personal hearing to the appellant between 9m January 2019 to 11 January 2019, a reminder in the form of email intimation was, also sent at registered mail address, again personal hearing was granted between 29th and 30 January, 2019 so that natural justice has been extended to the appellant but he failed to grab this opportunity. I observe that the Show Cause Notice is a way of natural justice for the claimant to extend their say and the same has been sufficiently extended to them by way of personal hearings, as the matter was already under adjudication process. Therefore, I find no infirmity in the conclusion of Adjudicating Authority on this count. 12.1 Regarding the Second question the contention of appellant is that as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 9 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, the burden of proof regarding admissibility of Cenvat Credit lies upon the appellant and the appellant had not provided any tangible documentary evidence in support of their contention. In the absence of which, I have no alternative but to uphold the order..." Therefore, I find that Commissioner (Appeals) allowed part refund, however, the same forms a part of the consolidated refund amount and to ascertain the same and to be completely satisfied with the submitted documents is obligatory for Adjudicating Authority. I find that the appellant failed to fulfill the obligation on their part and therefore, the part amount, even though found to be refundable in principle, cannot be sanctioned until other documenta....