TMI Blog2006 (12) TMI 418X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i U.H. Jadhav, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order]. Shri S. Chandrashekar, Executive (Excise) appeared on behalf of the Appellants. Shri U.H. Jadhav, JDR appeared on behalf of the revenue. The short issue involved in this case is that the appellants are manufacturers who have availed the benefit under Notification 6/2000, dated 1-3-2000. 2. Both the Lower Authorities have rejected the ref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the appellants submits that the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Deputy Commissioner should have followed the provisions of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. As per the provisions therein, the appellants have rightly filed the refund claim on 12-9-2001. The condition of Notification No. 6/2000, dtd. 1-3-2000 can not have precedence over the provisions of Section 11B of the Act. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... present case the appellants are the manufacturers. The learned DR relies on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Mihir Textiles Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, Bombay reported in 1997 (92) E.L.T. 9 (S.C.) wherein the Hon ble Apex Court inter alia has held that if any benefit of any project is claimed, then the condition prescribed therein have to be complied with even if they are only dire ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
