9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Refund of input duty credit reversed under excise law after export under advance licence scheme. Analysis: 1. The appellants manufactured Colour T.V. sets, some of which were exported under the advance licence scheme, and had taken credit on input duty which they reversed at the instance of customs authorities before export. The appeals sought refund of the reversed credits, claiming they were rightly taken under excise law without the need for reversal. However, lower authorities rejected the refund claims. 2. The learned Advocate for the appellants conceded that duty benefit was taken under customs Notification No. 203/92-Cus., which required no input duty credit while availing customs duty exemption. The advocate argued that the requirement was under customs law, whereas the refund was sought under excise law. He cited various case laws in support of the appeal, highlighting differences between customs and excise laws. 3. The department opposed the appeals, stating that since the appellants availed customs duty exemption under Notification No. 203/92, they were required to reverse the input duty credit, which they did. The department argued that the appellants were not entitled to a refund of the reversed input duty credit, as it would amount to double benefit. The department cited a Tribunal decision to support its stance. 4. After considering arguments and case laws, the Tribunal found that the duty exemption under Notification No. 203/92-Cus. required no input duty credit on exported goods. The appellants had availed this benefit and reversed the duty credit before export, as per the notification's conditions. Granting a refund would result in double benefit, contravening WTO agreements against impermissible subsidies. 5. The Tribunal concluded that the refund applications seeking Modvat credit refund for goods exported under the advance licence scheme were misconceived. Granting refunds would expose the appellants to demands for additional duty, basic duty, interest, and penal action. The Tribunal noted that the customs authorities had not initiated action against the appellants in four cases, presuming it was due to the credit reversal. 6. Refusing the refund, the Tribunal emphasized that granting double benefits of input duty credit and duty-free inputs for the same exports would violate WTO agreements. The Tribunal rejected the appeals, stating that the refund applications were rightly rejected by lower authorities. 7. The Tribunal addressed the appellants' apprehension of potential demands by customs authorities in remaining cases. However, the Tribunal noted that no demands were raised in those cases due to the credit reversal. The Tribunal directed customs authorities not to raise demands for violation of the notification's clause in light of the credit reversals. 8. While unable to apply the decisions cited by the appellants, the Tribunal agreed with the decision cited by the Revenue's representative. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of credit reversal for exported products to comply with duty benefits under Notification No. 203/92. 9. In conclusion, the Tribunal held that the appellants were not entitled to a refund for the reversed Modvat credit on exported products. Despite rejecting the appeals, the Tribunal directed customs authorities not to raise demands for notification clause violations due to the credit reversals made by the appellants.
|
