https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83061 A supporting manufacturer was held not entitled to Modvat refund under Rule 57F(3) where goods were exported in the name of a merchant exporter under the DEEC scheme, because the merchant exporter alone was the exporter for the transaction and any export benefit would lie with that exporter. The text also states that an appellate order annulling the earlier rejection and directing sanction if otherwise in order operated in substance as a remand, so the Assistant Collector retained jurisdiction to reopen and examine eligibility and admissibility of the refund claim. The departmental appeal succeeded and the refund claim was rejected. en-us Fri, 11 Feb 1994 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 09 Jul 2011 12:41:35 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83061 A supporting manufacturer was held not entitled to Modvat refund under Rule 57F(3) where goods were exported in the name of a merchant exporter under the DEEC scheme, because the merchant exporter alone was the exporter for the transaction and any export benefit would lie with that exporter. The text also states that an appellate order annulling the earlier rejection and directing sanction if otherwise in order operated in substance as a remand, so the Assistant Collector retained jurisdiction to reopen and examine eligibility and admissibility of the refund claim. The departmental appeal succeeded and the refund claim was rejected. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 11 Feb 1994 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83061