2003 (12) TMI 546 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Denial of deemed credit without production of duty paying documents under Notification 29/96-C.E. (N.T.) for exports made under AR-4 nos. 63/98-99, 67/98-99, and 56/98-99.

In this case, the main issue revolves around the denial of deemed credit amounting to Rs. 1,09,807/- without the production of duty paying documents as allowed by Notification 29/96-C.E. (N.T.). The denial specifically pertains to exports made under AR-4 nos. 63/98-99, 67/98-99, and 56/98-99. The rejection against AR-4 No. 63/98-99 was based on the timing of credit taken, which was not on the same date as the export. The denial against AR-4 No. 67/98-99 was due to the appellants indicating that the amount had already been utilized and thus not available for refund.

The appellants contested the objections raised by the authorities. They argued that the notification does not specify that the credit must be taken only at the time of clearance and not thereafter. The appellants emphasized that the substantial right of credit should not be lost if the manufacturer did not take credit at the time of clearance. The Tribunal agreed with the appellants, stating that there was no justification in the notification to deny credit if it was not taken at the time of clearance. Therefore, the lower authorities' decisions on this issue were deemed unsustainable.

Regarding the amount of Rs. 9,208/- under AR-4 No. 67/98-99, the appellants claimed it was an error to mention the utilization of the amount in the register and provided no evidence that the credit had been utilized against clearance documents. The Tribunal noted that without clearance documents, it cannot be assumed that the credit was utilized, and the department failed to provide any other reason for denying the refund apart from the mention in the register. Consequently, the findings on this matter were also not upheld.

However, the rejection of the claim for the amount of Rs. 1,074/- under AR-4 No. 56/98-99 was upheld as the appellants did not press for this claim during the hearing. Therefore, the rejection of this amount was maintained.

In conclusion, the appeal was partly allowed for claims related to AR-4 No. 63/98-99 and AR-4 No. 67/98-99, while the appeal concerning AR-4 No. 56/98-99 was rejected. The orders of the lower authorities were modified accordingly, and the appeal was partly allowed based on the above decisions.