9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (4) TMI 362X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... [Order]. - Heard both sides. 2. The applicant filed this appeal against order-in-appeal passed by Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the benefit of Modvat credit of Rs. 5,29,893/- was disallowed. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of TV picture tubes and they were clearing the same on payment of appropriate duty. The appellants were also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... credit. 4. Contention of the appellant is that the Revenue had wrongly directed them to deposit the excess amount of rebate. They are entitled for the rebate as claimed by them. Therefore, in view of the decision of the Tribunal in the case of CCE v. M.F. Rings Bearing Races Ltd. reported in 2000 (119) E.L.T. 239 they had rightly taken credit. 5. The contention of the Revenue is that the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the goods which were exported and the rebate claim was allowed. Thereafter, on verification it was found that the appellant claimed excess rebate. Therefore, the letter was issued to the appellant to deposit the excess amount of rebate. In pursuance to this letter the appellant deposited the excess amount of rebate. The direction given in the letter was not challenged by the appellant. Therefo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
