2004 (5) TMI 448

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Shri D.N. Choudhary, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : C.N.B. Nair, Member (T)]. - Appellant is a manufacturer of Bulk Drugs. Some of the consignments of bulk drugs manufactured by the appellant were exported by others. Those exports were under Advance Licence Scheme and covered by Notification No. 203/92-Cus., dated 19-5-1992. It was a condition of that Notification that no input cre....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lant to reverse an amount equivalent to the interest also from the Modvat credit. Accordingly, the appellant reversed a credit amount of over Rs. 31.5 lakhs. Subsequently, the appellant claimed refund of the credit so reversed on the plea that they had not carried out any exports under DEEC Scheme and therefore, the Amnesty Scheme did not apply to them. It was further contended that, in any event,....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....4 (T) = 1997 (18) RLT 607 in support of their contention. 4. Learned SDR's submission is that the appellant's contention that they were not covered by Notification No. 203/92 of the Amnesty Scheme is not correct. He has pointed out that the appellant's reversal of credit was an admission that the export of goods manufactured by it were under Notification No. 203/92. Learned SDR has contend....