9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (5) TMI 229X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Commissioner (Appeals) held that the refund claim of Rs. 8,17,694/- allowed through Cheque is not admissible. However, the appellants are entitled for the refund through CENVAT account for Rs. 7,61,102/-. 3. The contention of the appellants is that the benefit of MODVAT credit of Rs. 8,17,894/- was denied to the appellants and the appellants challenged the denial of this credit and the Trib ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tri.-Chennai)., Ashok Arc. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur, reported in 2002 (145) E.L.T. 591 (Tri.-Kol.) and Deccan Sales Corporation Anr. v. R. Parthasarthy Ors., reported in 1982 (10) E.L.T. 885. 5. The contention of the appellants in respect of the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the refund for Rs. 44810/- and Rs. 11782/- was remanded to the Adjudicating auth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case the main issue is whether the appellants are entitled for the refund in cash. Admitted facts of the case are that the appellants deposited this amount during the pendency of the appeal through their modvat account. Appellants relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Adi Sakthi Fabricators P. Ltd. (supra). In this case the some amount was paid by the assessee through MODVAT acco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s not applicable to the facts of the present case. 8. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the refund by way of credit of only Rs. 7,61,120.00 and in respect of the remaining amount, the matter was remanded to the Adjudicating Authority. The Adjudicating Authority while allowed the refund of the whole amount after scrutiny of the record, the claim was also pre-audited. After verifying the relevant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
