2005 (1) TMI 155

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....appeal against order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the refund claim of the appellant in respect of Rs. 8,42,385/- is rejected. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of paper and paper board falling under Chapter 48 of the Tariff. A Notification No. 6/2000-C.E., dated 1-3-2000 was issued whereby the product manufactured by ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d claim was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner. Thereafter the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Commissioner vide impugned order dismissed the appeal. 4. The contention of the appellant is that they had already reversed the credit taken during the month of March 2000, therefore, they are entitled for the benefit of Notification and duty paid on 30-8-2000 by t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e not entitled for the benefit of exemption notification. The contention of the Revenue is that thereafter the appellant reversed the credit and subsequently paid the duty for the month of March 2000 and filed the refund claim in respect of the credit reversed by them and the refund was allowed. In these circumstances, the contention is that as the appellant availed the benefit of credit in respec....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... filed a refund claim in respect of the credit already reversed. The refund of the credit on the inputs was allowed on 13-12-2000. The appellant had not challenged the refund claim order passed by the Assistant Commissioner granting refund of the credit. It means the appellant availed the credit for the month of March 2000 and also filed a refund claim in respect of the duty paid for that month by....