9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (6) TMI 87X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -2006. 2. None appears on behalf of the respondents despite notice since the issue is in a narrow compass the same is taken up for disposal in the absence of any representation from the respondent. 3. The issue involved in the case is regarding the refund of the amount involved in the inputs which were consumed by the respondents for the manufacturing of goods which were finally exported. The ad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respondents had utilized input for the manufacture of the finished goods which were cleared for export. It is on record that the respondents had filed the refund claim as per the provisions of Notification No. 11/2002. The fulfilment of the clause (2) of the Notification is adhered to, is evident, from the reply which clearly indicated that refund claim has been filed on quarterly basis. As regar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , has held as under :- "Further, the appellant has not directly exported the impugned goods; the goods were exported through a third party, namely, M/s. Haldex India Ltd. The question that comes up (though not made a ground for rejection of the claim) is whether refund is admissible in case of export through third party. Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 talks about refund of credit on expo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... facture of the export goods".
The above-reproduced findings clearly indicate that there was substantial compliance of the procedures as laid down by Notification No. 11/92.
6. Accordingly, the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) is well-reasoned one and does not require any interference. Appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected.
(Dictated in court) X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
