Modvat refund on export under bond cannot be denied merely because merchant exporters handled the shipment.

Refund of Modvat credit under Rule 57F(3) is admissible where final products are cleared for export under bond and export is established. The provision does not require the manufacturer to personally effect the physical export, and no additional condition can be implied into a taxing rule. Accordingly, the involvement of merchant exporters does not by itself defeat the refund claim when the goods were exported from the manufacturer's premises under the prescribed procedure.

---

---

Issues: Whether refund of Modvat credit under Rule 57F(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was admissible when the final products were exported through merchant exporters instead of being exported directly by the manufacturer.

Analysis: The proviso to Rule 57F(3) permits refund of credit of specified duty where final products are cleared for export under bond and the export is established. The rule does not impose any additional requirement that the manufacturer must personally effect the physical export. On the facts, export was not disputed and the goods were cleared from the manufacturer's premises under bond in the prescribed procedure. The mere involvement of merchant exporters did not alter the character of the clearances as exports. In a taxing provision, nothing can be implied beyond the words used, and no further condition could be read into the rule.

Conclusion: Refund under Rule 57F(3) was admissible. The objection that export through merchant exporters disentitled the manufacturer to refund was rejected, and the appeal failed.

Final Conclusion: The order granting refund was sustained because the decisive requirement was proof of export under bond, not direct export by the manufacturer.

Ratio Decidendi: Where final products are cleared for export under bond and export is established, refund of credit under Rule 57F(3) cannot be denied merely because the export was effected through a merchant exporter.

---