TMI Blog2008 (11) TMI 579X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s exported - E/361/2008 - 1278/2008 - Dated:- 10-11-2008 - Shri T.K. Jayaraman, J. Shri T.M. Subramanian, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri V. Poorna Chandra Rao, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order]. - This appeal has been filed against Order-in-Appeal No. 55/2008-CE dated 29-2-2008 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals-I), Bangalore wherein refund claim of Rs. 9,41,2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ity. The stand of the Department is that, in the present case, the user industries have not directly procured the materials from the manufacturer. In other words, the appellant is not a manufacturer of the materials sent to the 100% EOU/Exporter. For the above reasons, the refund was sought to be denied and the Commissioner (A) upheld the rejection of the refund claim. 3. The learned departmenta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... curing the goods which will be used in the manufacture of final products to be exported. 4. I find that the appellant had removed the goods only on the strength of CT-3 Certificate issued by the departmental officers. The user industry had also followed the procedure outlined in Notification No. 43/2001. Further, Rule 19(2) of Central Excise Rules reads as follows. Rule 19(2) : Any material ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
