2002 (10) TMI 394

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... pondent. [Order]. - This is an appeal filed by the party with reference to Order-in-Appeal No. 58/2000, dtd. 21-7-2000 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Cochin. 2. The appellants, M/s. Elgitread (India) Ltd. are engaged in the manufacture of Procured Tread Rubber falling under Chapter 40 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellant was availing credit of duty .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 7GG. It was also held by the authorities below that since the party has not filed any reply to the letter of the Superintendent, the refund as such is not permissible. 4. Shri Shivadass submitted that the orders passed by the authorities are not sustainable in the eye of law since no Show Cause Notice has been issued for denial of the credit. On merits also the denial was not correct since i .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the refund claim was in time. In the facts and circumstances and on going through the relevant records, I do not find any substance in the orders passed by the authorities below in denying the Modvat credit. I am in agreement with the plea taken by the party that show cause notice is mandatory, as it was held in the case referred to above. In the result, appeal is allowed with consequential relief .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X