2004 (6) TMI 538

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ate, for the Respondent. [Order per : S.S. Sekhon, Member (T)]. - Respondents were engaged in manufacture of excisable Man Made Fabrics and availed Modvat credit as per law, on the inputs. Since they were exporting the fabrics so manufactured, under Bond, without payment of duty, the Credit of Modvat in balance could not be utilised. They were entitled to refund of such credits, by the CCE (App .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... sumption. (iii)   As regards original AR 4's not filed it was found that they have been submitted to same authority as Proof of Export. 2. Hence this appeal by Revenue on the grounds - (a)     Conditions of Notification 85/87-C.E. mandatory and are required to be strictly followed. (b)     As per this notification, claims cannot be submitt .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... (Appeals) has brought out the fact of AR 4 being submitted to same authority to meet the export obligation proof cannot be found to be a failure to cause rejection of the refund under Rule 57F(13) by the same authority. (c)     There is commercial logic and force in the finding of CCE (Appeals) that no manufacturer will discharge current liability of duty in cash, from his PL .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X