9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (1) TMI 350X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nging the order dated 22-1-2007 passed by the Joint Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi by which the revision filed by the petitioner has been rejected. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a Company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act. The petitioner is engaged in the manufacture of C.R. Sheets/Coils/Sheets/G.P. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) Customs and Central Excise, Meerut-1, now at Ghaziabad. The said appeal has been allowed vide order dated 27-3-2006 and the order of the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, Ghaziabad has been set aside. 4. Being aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), the petitioner filed revision before the Central Government under Section 35(E) of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the foreign supplier, being of defective nature, on no commercial FOB value. The parties were required to pay/reverse an amount equal to the credit availed in respect of such goods as per the provisions of Rule 3(4) of the Rules. But the petitioner cleared these goods on payment of duty and filed refund/rebate claim. Further, in all the cases of exports, the party has to provide BRC of proceeds t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dvat credit availed by it while returning the goods. The goods, which are claimed to have been exported, are not excisable goods. Therefore, the refund claim is not admissible under Rule 173L of the Rules and even the condition of Rule 173L has not been complied with. It is not a case of double deposit of duty inasmuch as Modvat credit availed has not been reversed. 10. In the result, the writ pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
