2004 (9) TMI 477

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ondent. [Order per : P.G. Chacko, Member (J)]. Refunds totalling to Rs. 74,99,199/- were made to the appellants under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2001, which were the amounts of duty paid on the inputs used by them in, or in relation to, manufacture of the final products which they had exported under bond during the first 3 quarters of the financial year 2001-2002. It appeared to .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n those circumstances where manufacturer is not in a position to utilise the credit of the duty on inputs allowed under Rule 3 of the said rules against goods exported during the quarter or month to which the claim relates. It is the Counsel s contention that the demand of duty is based on a misinterpretation of the above condition according to which refund should be allowed where the manufact .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... reiterated the view taken in the impugned order. He has not shown any distinction between Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2001 and Rule 57F(13) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Further, it has been admitted that the only condition which is relevant to this case is condition No. 5 in the Appendix to the above Notification, which we have extracted. We have already considered this condition. Pri .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X