2008 (4) TMI 248

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Appellants have not produced any proof that goods were used for repair and maintenance only for the satisfaction of the authority as required under Notification No. 281/86 dated 24-4-86. Apart from the aforesaid findings, refund claims are not admissible to the Appellant as they failed to produce original duty paying documents as per Section 11B(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Refund claims also not admissible to the Appellants as they failed to give details of amount of Modvat availed on inputs used in the manufacture of goods purchased by them. Although protest letter filed by M/s. Grasim E & DD is applicable to the Appellants and claims could not be held time barred on this ground, accordingly refund claims are not admissible to the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....1/86-C.E. were not complied with. The contention is that the appellants are the recipient of the goods cleared by F & DD on payment of duty. The adjudicating authority allowed the exemption provided under Notification No. 281/86 to the manufacturing units i.e. E & DD. No demand is raised till today against the manufacturing units on the ground that conditions of the notification are not fulfilled, therefore, the denial of benefit of Notification No. 281/86-C.E. at the recipient end is not sustainable. The contention is also that in the refund application, the applicant specifically mentioned that all the goods received from the manufacturing unit are used for maintenance and repair purposes and there is no evidence on record contrary to thi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....order, the refund claim was rejected on the ground that the present appellants failed to show that condition of Notification No. 281/86 were complied with. We find that E & DD of the appellant were manufacturing the parts and claiming the benefit of the notification No. 281/86. Initially the benefit was denied and manufacturing unit cleared the goods on payment of appropriate duty after availing the benefit of Modvat credit. Subsequently the adjudicating authority allowed the benefit of this notification. In pursuance to the order passed by the adjudicating authority allowing the benefit of notification to the manufacturing unit, the appellant filed refund claims in respect of goods received by them regarding which they had paid duty. There....