2005 (8) TMI 178

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he same is allowed. 2. The appeal is directed against an order allowing cash refund (not Modvat credit) to the appellants. The facts leading to the dispute are that vide Order dated 25-11-2004 the Asstt. Commissioner allowed the refund claim of the appellant, amounting to about Rupees 12.5 lakhs. While effecting payment, the authorities paid an amount of Rs. 25,000/- by cheque and the remaining .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ade to only that account. It is contended that there is no provision in law to grant refund in cash in respect of duty paid from the Modvat account. 4. Learned Departmental Representative has placed before us the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Smithkline Beechem Consumer Healthcare Ltd. v. CCE, Bangalore [2001 (127) E.L.T. 64] and Rollatainers Ltd. v. CCE, Jaipur [2005 (183) E.L.T. 38] .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e order of the original Authority denied the refund to the respondents. This Tribunals' aforesaid decision in the case of CCE, Ahmedabad-I v. Arcoy Industries and CCE, Ahmedabad v. Omkar Textiles support the payment of refund in cash/cheque to the Appellant. 6. In the above factual and legal situation, we find no merit in the Appeal of the Revenue. Appeal is rejected. - - TaxTMI - TMITax .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X