2004 (3) TMI 470

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Shri Hardik Modh, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order per : Jyoti Balasundaram, Member (J)]. - The Revenue is aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) who has held that the respondents herein who are manufacturers of Sorbital 70% were entitled to refund of Rs. 1,04,328/- in terms of Rule 173L of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, for duty paid goods initially cleared on payment o .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... xcise Act, which itself provides for recovery of erroneous refund by issue of a notice within six months from the relevant date. 3. In view of the clear language of Section 11A, we see no merit in the objection of the respondents and accordingly over rule the same. 4. On the merits of the matter we find that the revenue is right in its contention, on the basis of the Tribunal s order in the ca .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X