2004 (6) TMI 464

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... [Order per : S.S. Sekhon, Member (T)]. Respondent were engaged in manufacturing of excisable Man Made Fabrics and availed Modvat credit as per law, on the inputs. Since they were exporting the fabrics and manufactured, under Bond, without discharging duty thereon, the credit of Modvat in balance could not be utilised. They were entitled to refund of such credit by the CCE (A). It who found .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ted the same to same authorities in connection with AR 4 closures as Proof of Export. 2. Hence this appeal by Revenue on the grounds - (a) Conditions of Notification No. 85/87-CE mandatory and are required to be strictly followed. (b) As per this notification, claim cannot be submitted more than once in a quarter and the assessee had filed 3 claims during March, 1998 and two in .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... roof cannot be found fault. This to be a failure, to cause rejection of the refund under 57F(13) by the same authority cannot be upheld. The original authority could have verified the documents in the other file. (c) There is commercial sense and force in the finding of CCE (A), that no manufacturer will discharge current liability of duty in cash, from his PLA, thereafter only to seek re .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X