2004 (4) TMI 362

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... S. Bhatnagar, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order]. -  Heard both sides. 2. The applicant filed this appeal against order-in-appeal passed by Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the benefit of Modvat credit of Rs. 5,29,893/- was disallowed. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of TV picture tubes and they were clearing the same on....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....xcess rebate, therefore, they are not entitled for the credit. 4.  Contention of the appellant is that the Revenue had wrongly directed them to deposit the excess amount of rebate. They are entitled for the rebate as claimed by them. Therefore, in view of the decision of the Tribunal in the case of CCE v. M.F. Rings & Bearing Races Ltd. reported in 2000 (119) E.L.T. 239 they had rightly ta....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....are that the appellants filed a rebate claim in respect of the duty paid on the goods which were exported and the rebate claim was allowed. Thereafter, on verification it was found that the appellant claimed excess rebate. Therefore, the letter was issued to the appellant to deposit the excess amount of rebate. In pursuance to this letter the appellant deposited the excess amount of rebate. The di....