9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (1) TMI 376X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... espondents. [Order]. - The appellants are manufacturers of two products, starch and glucose and had been availing of the Modvat Procedure for payment of duty on these products by utilising the credit of duty earned in respect of duty paid on the inputs utilised in their manufacture. An objection was taken to their payment of duty on 23 M.T. of starch which had been cleared on payment of duty by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y filed the appeal against such order of rejection passed by the Assistant Collector, the Collector (Appeals) upheld their stand that it was not a case of refund at all but restoration of credit which had been wrongly utilised earlier. The present appeal filed by the department is against the said order-in-appeal passed in favour of the present respondents. 2. Shri R.A. Shaikh, learned DR a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eld by the Tribunal in the first case, mentioned above, Modvat Credit cannot be the subject matter of a refund claim under Section 11B of Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944. 3. I have considered the submissions and perused the record. The impugned order has correctly taken note of the fact that relief sought by the present respondent was for restoration of the credit which had been held to ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e (4). This would clearly rule out a refund claim in a case of this type. Accordingly, it would have been appropriate for the Assistant Collector to have rejected the refund claim on the ground that it was not maintainable as it pertained to Modvat credit and that there was no provision for grant of any refund of such credit. It was erroneous to have rejected the refund claim on the ground of time ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
