9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 148X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any duty for which they claimed refund - Held that: - the appellant was supposed to get 100% MODVAT credit whereas they have availed only 75% and for the remaining 25% they have filed a refund claim. The authority below, even if they had the view that the refund is not governed by Section 11B, they could very well allow MODVAT credit by way of credit in the MODVAT account. Under the circumstances ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... heading 9801 as part of project import, availed CENVAT credit only to the extent of 75% in terms of Rule 57Q(3) of Central Excise Rules 1944. There was confusion whether the provisions of Rule 57Q(3) whereby restriction for taking MODVAT credit to the extent of 75% would also apply in respect of raw material and component. Subsequently, it was clarified that such restriction shall not apply in ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellant is before us. 2. Shri K.A. Photographer, Associate Vice-President of the appellant-company submits that in principle credit of 100% is admissible and the appellant has admittedly availed only 75% of the credit. Therefore, the appellant is entitled for the balance credit of 25%. In this fact the claim of the appellant is legal, correct as they sought refund of 25% which is due to the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he lower authorities rejected the refund claim only on the ground that the appellant have not taken the credit of 25% and therefore, refund is not maintainable. We are surprised to note that if the appellant would have taken the credit, the question of refund does not arise. The appellant is legally entitled for the credit of 25% for which they filed a refund claim. Whether the refund claim is for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
