TMI Blog2005 (7) TMI 457X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Appellant. Shri Virag Gupta, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : P.S. Bajaj, Member (J)]. - This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the impugned order-in-appeal vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has affirmed the order-in-original of the adjudicating authority rejecting the refund claim of Rs. 1,72,305/- of the appellants. 2.The facts are not much in dispute. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cations. The adjudicating authority rejected their claim through the order-in-original and the Commissioner (Appeals) has affirmed the said order. 3.The ld. Counsel has contended that since the goods were neither exempt from duty nor attracted nil rate of duty under the Notifications No. 64/95, dated 16-3-1995 and 10/97, dated 1-3-1997, the appellants are entitled to the refund of the amount in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... maintain separate account in terms of sub-rule (2) of Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules. After having availed the exemption from payment of duty under the above said notifications, the appellants cannot be legally permitted to take this stand that the goods were neither exempt from payment of duty nor chargeable to nil rate of duty. They legally could not claim Modvat credit in respect of the inputs u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uthorities below. The observations of the Tribunal while deciding the stay matter in Falcon Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Chennai [2002 (147) E.L.T. 288 (Tribunal-Chennai)] that the appellants-therein were eligible to take the Modvat credit if they paid duty wrongly out of Modvat credit A/c while supplying the goods to the Department of Atomic Energy under exemption Notification No. 10/97-C.E ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
