TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (3) TMI 130
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....16.02.2023, is taken up together for orders today. 2. Rejection of refund claim of accumulated CENVAT Credits for non-compliance of conditions enumerated in Notification No. 05/2006-CE(NT) dated 14.03.2006 and Notification No. 27/2012- CE(NT) dated 18.06.2012 read with Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 by the refund sanctioning authorities that had been assailed before the Commissioner of Central Tax, Central Excise & Service Tax, (Appeals), Raigarh, Navi Mumbai and partially modified through one appellate order, disposing of 10 Orders-in-Original, is assailed before this Tribunal to the extent of denial of refund claimed for the period January, 2012 to March 2015. In first 10 appeals shown in the cause-title Appellant assailed the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....had obtained service tax registration under the category of Business Auxiliary Service (BAS). As an export oriented unit, it could not utilised CENVAT Credit of Service Tax taken on input services used for export of BAS. It sought for refund for 10 different periods under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rule read with Notification No. 27/2012- CE(NT) and submitted declarations duly certified by statutory Auditor as was mandated by the notification issued by the Government of India to the field formations for simplifying the procedure of sanction of refund of unutilised CENVAT Credits. Parts of its refund claim were allowed rest parts were rejected in the Order-in-Original, the detail of which is tabled below:- Sr. No. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 59,49,534/- 10. 383-R/SJ/1-176 dated 10.03.2017 January 2015 to March 2015 6,32,00,856/- 31,22,472/- Total 4,33,23,488/- In the appeals filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) for the total amount or rejection of refund to the tune of Rs.4,33,23,488/- He had recorded his findings concerning admissibility and nonadmissibility of item wise credits and directed re-quantification of sanctioned refund amount to be done by the adjudicating authority on the basis of his observation. In respect of the other 5 appeals separate orders of rejection were passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) on different date, as ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d view that eligibility of the disputed credits have already been settled in the favour of the Appellant in its own case reported in 2016 (44) STR 454 (Tri.-Mum.) and its para 8 contains the description of each category of credit availed by the Appellant. Order remaining unchallenged would operate as res-judicata besides the fact that it has attained finality and bind the subsequent decisions by becoming a precedent law. In our earlier orders on this issue, we both the Members have already taken a view, in conformity to the precedent set by this Tribunal in the light of K Line Ship Management India Pvt. Ltd. cited supra, Microsoft Research Lab cited supra, and many others similarly placed judgment that without issue of notice under Rule 14 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pographical error, in which case name of the party issuing and receiving the service, exact amount etc. can be accepted as relevant factors for consideration of refund. On Service Tax paid under Reverse Charge Mechanism on the very next month of the quarter in which service was taken, we find force in the submission of learned Counsel that the decision of Tribunal reported in 2016-TIOL-3217-CESTAT MUMBAI, orders passed in the case of Gujarat Pipavave Port Ltd. in Appeal No. ST/135-136/2007 and India Cement Ltd. reported in 2018 (5) TMI 603 could have been taken into consideration by the Commissioner (Appeals) in deciding the issue. 7. In respect of Appeal No. ST/85973/2020 the rejection of refund was solely on the ground that original do....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....have been considered as proof of production of document evidencing payment of duty, against which creditor's claimed. It is worthwhile to reproduce relevant portion of Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, that would provide an answer to the issue. "65. Cases in which secondary evidence relating to documents may be given.-Secondary evidence may be given of the existence, condition, or contents of a document in the following cases:- (a) ... (b) ... (c) when the original has been destroyed or lost, or when the party offering evidence of its contents cannot, for any other reason not arising from his own default or neglect, produce it in reasonable time." 7.1 In view of the above provision of law, we are ....