TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (2) TMI 185
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Appellant. Shri S .M. Tata, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per: Chittaranjan Satapathy, Member (T)]. -1. Heard both sides 2. The Appellants are before the Tribunal because the claim for refund preferred by the Appellants before the Authorities below has been rejected on the ground of time bar. The Appellants claimed to have received the impugned goods from ten dealers and took credit in res....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ee admitted the irregular availment of Modvat credit on the basis of the documents fraudulently prepared by the dealers without actually supplying the corresponding input materials to the Appellants. 2. Shri B.N. Chattopadhyay, ld. Consultant appearing before us mainly contends that the amount which was deposited on 26-7-96, 30-8-96 and 31-12-1997 were in the nature of pre-deposits under Section ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....decision are no longer good law. 3. Considering the submissions made by the ld. SDR and in view of Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision cited above, we are unable to agree with the ld. Consultant's submission that the deposit of the impugned amounts can be taken as pre-deposits under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Moreover, the pre-deposit under Section 35F pre-supposes issue of an adju....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....As pointed out by the ld. SDR, the case of the Jayant Glass Industries (P) Ltd. is on a different footing where the Tribunal itself had directed the refund of theamount which was not being paid by the Department. Hence, the cited order waspassed in the circumstances of that case. in the Appellants' case before us, notonly there was no dispute regarding the duty, there was also no direction by theT....