2005 (6) TMI 155

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... has allowed the refund in cash to the respondents. 2. I have heard both the sides. Ld. DR has contended that the refund of the Cenvat amount could only be allowed in that very account and not in cash to the respondents, therefore, the impugned order deserves to be modified. But keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case in my view, the contention of the ld. DR is not liable to be ac .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Cenvat. 3. The respondents thereafter disputed the correctness of the part of that order of adjudicating authority before the Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that since they are availing the exemption under Notification No. 50/2003 dated 10-6-2003, they would not be in a position to utilise the credit in Cenvat account. They had also relied upon the Board Circular dt. 22-10-2003 clarifying .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... aningless and only on papers. Therefore, they had been rightly allowed the refund in cash by the Commissioner (Appeals). The ratio of law laid down in the case of Purvi Fabrics Texturise (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Jaipur-II reported in 2004 (172) E.L.T. 321 referred by ld. DR is not attracted to the relevant case. 4. Consequently, of the Revenue is the impugned order is upheld and appeal dismisse .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X