9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (8) TMI 504X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the Respondent. [Order per : Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)]. - Nobody has appeared for the appellant. Accordingly, we have heard the ld. DR and have gone through the impugned order. 2. Appellant is engaged in the manufacture of goods falling under Chapters 28 and 29 of Central Excise Traffic Act and were availing the benefit of Modvat credit of duty paid on the inputs. During the relevant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, 1944. However, Revenue felt that the exported bulk drug was cleared at higher rate of duty of 20% instead of effective duty rate of 10% in terms of the notification with the sole intention of using the accumulated Modvat credit and as such, the rebate claim to the extent of duty extra paid was not admissible. Accordingly show cause notice for denial of the same was issued on 20-6-95. 4. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellant to deposit the excess rebate of Rs. 1,97,799.60 claimed by them on export clearances. Appeal against the above order did not succeed before Commissioner (Appeals). Hence, the present appeal. 5. We find that admittedly export clearances were made by the appellant by paying duty @ 20% ad valorem. No objection was raised by the Revenue at that point of time. Assessee was never directed t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n (if at all, the same was available to them), they cannot be compelled to do so. Rebate claim to the extent of duty paid by them is available to them under the law. Admittedly, they have paid duty @ 20% ad valorem and would be entitled to rebate accordingly. The same cannot be cut short on the ground that less duty should have been paid in terms of the notification. As such, we are of the view th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
