1997 (10) TMI 84

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 2. Briefly stated the respondents received "Endosulpan and Technical" and "Cyparmethrin Technical" and availed input Modvat credit on the same. After subjecting the same to Quality control and after repacking these into drums exported those under bond as per procedure. In terms of Notification No. 85/87-C.E., dated 1-3-1987 issued under Rule 57F(3), they filed refund claims amounting to Rs. 44,68,037/-, Rs. 28,65,720/- and Rs. 24,64,000/- pertaining to the Quarter ending June, 1995, September, 1995 and December, 1995 respectively. These were rejected by Assistant Commissioner, Dn. K III, Mumbai-I, the reasons for rejection being that the respondent had not at all utilised the inputs in the manufacture of any final product and had export....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....int; the subject matter of their appeal before appellate authority was on that point on which they have got favourable orders from the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals). Hence, now, for the applicant Commissioner having not gone in review of the AC's orders or missed the opportunity of appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), cannot pick points in the Order-in-Original and come in review before Government. What he can do is to come in review of Order-in-Appeal and placed reliance on the Tribunal's decision as reported in 1997 (94) E.L.T. 511 (Tribunal). 8. The Advocate further averred that they had furnished all documents and explanations to the original authority and submitted illustrative copies. Regarding the question of denia....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on for filing review of the AC's order before Commissioner (Appeals). Having not done so, to rectify the same by way of review of the appellate order, is not proper and is uncalled for Govt. agrees with this plea of the respondents. However the ratio of the Tribunals decision relied upon by the respondents is not relevant in the present context because in that case a direction given in an earlier order by the Collector (Appeals) was not appealed against but was sought to be dragged in by appealing to CEGAT against the subsequent (second) order of Collector (Appeals) emanating from the first order passed by him and decision taken by the original authority thereon. Hence reliance upon the Tribunal's decision is of no help to the respondents. ....