2010 (11) TMI 323

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ld. JDR for the department. None appeared for the Respondent despite notice. The appeal filed by the department is against the Commissioner (Appeals)' order, whereby he has upheld the lower adjudicating authority's order of sanctioning the refund to the Respondent under Rule of 5 of Central Excise Rules read with Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 2. Briefly stated facts of the cas....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....refund claim of Rs. 6,35,558/- and rejected the refund claim prior to Nov. 2006. The Revenue filed appeal against the sanction of the refund claim. The Commissioner (Appeals) vide the impugned order rejected the department's appeal and upheld the lower adjudicating authority's order. Aggrieved by this, the Revenue filed the appeal. 3. The contention of the Revenue is that both the lower auth....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rtment is relating to Condition No. (4) of the Notification dated 14-3-2006 i.e. - "the refund is allowed only in those circumstances where a manufacturer or provider of output service is not in a position to utilize the in put credit or input service credit allowed under Rule 3 of the said Rules against goods exported during the quarter or month, to which the claim relates." Undisputedly, the Res....