9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (11) TMI 847X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Respondent. [Order per : C.N.B. Nair, Member (T)]. This is a case involving violation of the provisions of Notification No. 203/92-C.E., dated 19-5-92 inasmuch as the appellants took Modvat credit as well as imported goods duty free, which was violation of condition No. V a of the said Notification. The appellants made a deposit of Rs. 9,80,015/- on 31-8-95 towards wrongly availed cr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sought refund of the amount. The refund application has been rejected by the original authority as well as Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that the payments made by the appellants, being of a much earlier period than the issuance of Circular dated 3-1-97, those payments would not be covered by the Circular and no refunds would be due. 3. During the hearing of the case today, ld. JDR, Shri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... terms of the Circular dated 3-1-97 and the payment of interest in the present case was also made in terms of the circular. He, therefore, submits that the Revenue could make no claim beyond what was permissible under the Circular. 5. Para-7 of the Apex Court s judgement in the case of Bharti Telecom Ltd. reads as under :- 7. Challenging the order of the Tribunal, ld. Counsel for the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he issuance of the circular. 7. The submission that the Circular dated 3-1-97 did not cover cases where amount of excess credit is ascertainable, also does not seem to be sustainable. In the present case, ineligible input credit was worked-out based on input-output norm. Such a working out is possible in any case. 8. During the hearing, ld. JDR also submitted that the refund application of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
