2006 (3) TMI 597 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Claim for refund of deemed credit under Notification No. 29/96-C.E.(N.T.), rejection of claim for the period from April to September, 1998, entitlement to refund based on non-availment of Modvat credit, exports in discharge of obligation under Excise Duties Drawback Rule, 1971, non-maintenance of deemed credit register.

The appeal in question pertains to the rejection of a claim for the refund of deemed credit amounting to Rs. 83,91,297. The appellants had cleared goods for export under AR4s during a specific period. The claim for refund for the period from April to September 1998 was denied due to being time-barred, a finding that was accepted and upheld without contest. However, for the remaining period, it was noted that the appellants had declared on the AR4s that they were not availing Modvat credit under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and that the exports were in discharge of obligations under the Excise Duties Drawback Rule, 1971. The authorities highlighted that the appellants had not maintained a deemed credit register for export clearances, making it impossible to verify the unutilized deemed credit amount. Since the appellants did not avail of Modvat credit, they were deemed ineligible for a refund as no credit was initially taken. Furthermore, the exports being in fulfillment of obligations under the Excise Duties Drawback Rule, 1971, and the absence of a maintained deemed credit register further solidified the decision to reject the refund claim. The tribunal concluded that the appellants were not entitled to the refund of deemed credit, thereby upholding the impugned order and dismissing the appeal.

In summary, the judgment revolved around the rejection of a claim for the refund of deemed credit under Notification No. 29/96-C.E.(N.T.). The decision was based on various grounds, including the time-barred nature of the claim for a specific period, the appellants' non-availment of Modvat credit, the exports being in discharge of obligations under the Excise Duties Drawback Rule, 1971, and the absence of a maintained deemed credit register for verification purposes. The tribunal, after thorough consideration, upheld the rejection of the refund claim, emphasizing that the appellants were not entitled to the refund due to their non-fulfillment of the necessary conditions as per the relevant regulations and rules.