2008 (11) TMI 579

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....o, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order]. - This appeal has been filed against Order-in-Appeal No. 55/2008-CE dated 29-2-2008 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals-I), Bangalore wherein refund claim of Rs. 9,41,297/- has been rejected. 2. The issue lies within a narrow compass. The appellant received inputs on which credit was taken, however, due to business exigencies some i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ppellant is not a manufacturer of the materials sent to the 100% EOU/Exporter. For the above reasons, the refund was sought to be denied and the Commissioner (A) upheld the rejection of the refund claim. 3. The learned departmental representative brought to my attention the following Notifications. (i)  Notification No. 22/2003 dated 31-3-2003. (ii) Notification No. 43/2001 date....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....oods only on the strength of CT-3 Certificate issued by the departmental officers. The user industry had also followed the procedure outlined in Notification No. 43/2001. Further, Rule 19(2) of Central Excise Rules reads as follows. Rule 19(2) : Any material may be removed without payment of duty from a factory of the producer or the manufacturer or the warehouse or any other premises, for use ....