9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 76X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ho has claimed Modvat credit. Thus, the apprehension on the part of this appellant that double benefit may not go to the parties is uncalled for and unwarranted for the very same goods. The importer cannot claim refund of the countervailing duty as well as the manufacturer cannot get Modvat credit. This is principally true but here in the facts of the present case there is no allegation levelled by the Excise Department in their show-cause notice. Twice the benefits have been claimed, one by the importer (refund of the countervailing duty) and another by the manufacturer-respondent (Modvat credit upon the inputs). It is the case of the appellant that if one benefit is availed another is not allowed. In the facts of the present case only the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... suse that in every bill of entry there is a need of declaration by the importer of the goods that the importer is not going to claim refund of countervailing duty. In the eventualities only the respondent can get Modvat credit. In the facts of the present case, the importer of the goods has not given any declaration along with bill of entry that he will not claim the refund of countervailing duty and, therefore, the respondent has wrongly availed Modvat credit. This is the main argument canvassed by the counsel for the appellant. It is also submitted by the counsel for the appellant that this aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the CESTAT and, therefore, the said order dated 19th October, 2011 (signed by both the membe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion levelled by the Excise Department in their show-cause notice. Twice the benefits have been claimed, one by the importer (refund of the countervailing duty) and another by the manufacturer-respondent (Modvat credit upon the inputs). It is the case of the appellant that if one benefit is availed another is not allowed. In the facts of the present case only the manufacturer who is the respondent has claimed the Modvat credit. Even department of Central Excise is not knowing whether importer has claimed any refund of countervailing duty. 4. Moreover, looking to Rule 57 G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 there is substantial compliance of the said rule. There is no direct reference of the certificate or declaration to be given by the imp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
