2000 (10) TMI 432

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....enied on the ground that as per the Modvat rules, the claim should be filed not more than once for the exports made in a particular quarter and also on the ground of input output ratio. The Commissioner (Appeals) while relying on his earlier Order-in-Appeal regarding the input output ratio set aside the rejection on the ground that input output ratio, but upheld the rejection of the refund claims on the ground that there is a specific declaration in the refund claim itself to the effect that a refund claim under Rule 57F(13) cannot be filed more than once for the same quarter and this cannot be treated as technical/procedural lapse. 2. Ld. Advoate, Shri C. Saravanan for the appellants submits that they had exported the goods and the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....-3-1987 issued under the said Rule which is applicable in the present case also. He also relied upon the decision reported in the case of CCE, Bombay v. Gupta Soaps reported at 1999 (111) E.L.T. 720 (Tribunal) = 1999 (33) RLT 256 wherein procedural lapse of two refund claims made in one quarter were ignored and refund was held to be eligible and could not be denied for this procedural lapse. He submits that in this view, this appeal should be allowed with consequential relief. 3. Ld. DR Shri Murugan on behalf of the department submitted that the decision of the Tribunal cannot be relied upon since exports were made on 17-2-1997 and 26-3-1997, and the claims were made on 17-7-1997 which is not the same quarter and even if 3 months ta....