TMI Blog2011 (4) TMI 488X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... laim of M/s.CEAT Ltd. The lower appellate authority has rejected the appeal of the appellant holding that the appellant has no locus standi to file the present appeal as the appellant cannot be held to an aggrieved person in this case as refund claim has not been filed by them. - Held that:- the show-cause notice has been issued to the appellant earlier. Therefore, the observation of the lower app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wards, the appellant was processing/manufacturing tyres, tubes, etc. for M/s.CEAT Ltd. M/s.CEAT Ltd., was possessing Value Based Advance Licenses (VABAL). In terms of Notification No.203/92-Cus dated 19/05/92 as amended, for discharging export obligation, no Modvat credit under Rule 57A on inputs utilized in the manufacture of goods intended to be exported, was to be taken, in case credit was take ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellants are before us. 3. The Ld. Advocate for the appellant drew our attention to the show-cause notice wherein the appellants were also directed to show-cause whey the refund claim should not be rejected. Therefore, he prayed that the appellants are the aggrieve person and having the locus standi to file the appeal and the observation of the lower appellant authority are incorrect and reque ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is totally incorrect; hence, we set aside the impugned order. 7. We further observe that against the rejection of refund claim by the lower appellate authority, M/s.CEAT Ltd. also preferred an appeal before this Tribunal and their appeal has been allowed by this Tribunal by way of remand to the original adjudicating authority vide order No.A/31/2011/EB/C-II dated 11/01/2011. Therefore, by set ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
