2006 (3) TMI 431

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... V.B. Gaikwad, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order]. - The short point involved in this appeal is that the respondents have taken re-credit of wrongly paid 8% amount under Rule 57AD paid by them on sugar mill rollers repaired and cleared by them. 2. The learned S.D.R. submits that the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order allowing such re-credit is not correct as in such cases the assessee....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n appellable order is not challenged, then such orders cannot be questioned by filing a refund claim. Reference was also invited to the Tribunal decision in the case of Century Rayon v. C.C.E., Mumbai wherein the credit was denied by the jurisdictional superintendent in respect of inputs contained in the exempted intermediate Modvat product and the assessee was held to be not entitled to take re-c....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s own if the same was incorrectly reversed by them on export clearance. 4. Considering the submissions made by both the sides, I find that the decision of the Apex Court and the Tribunal decision in the case of Preena Cables & Albert Devid are not relevant to the present circumstances of the case as the facts were different. The Tribunal decision in the case of Century Rayon was on a diffe....