2008 (2) TMI 750

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....R, for the Appellant. S/Shri R.K. Chaudhary and B.N. Pal, Advocates, for the Respondent. [Order per : Chittaranjan Satapathy, Member (T)]. - Heard both sides. 2. This appeal has been filed by the Department on the ground that the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of M/s. Solar Pesticides v. U.O.I. - 1992 (57) E.L.T. 201 (Bombay) which has been relied upon by....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....accountant in this regard which require to be examined by the original authority. 4. Shri R.K. Chaudhary, ld. Advocate appearing for the respondents also states that the original authority in page 7 of his order has recorded that the refund has a basis in the non-availment of the proforma credit under Rule 56A and the claim is therefore required to be examined in the light of non-applicabi....