9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1984 (6) TMI 229 - AT - Central Excise
Issues involved: Appeal against rejection of claim for Proforma Credit of countervailing duty paid on imported raw materials.
Summary: The appeal was filed challenging the rejection of the claim for Proforma Credit of countervailing duty paid on imported raw materials used in the manufacturing process. The appellants, licensed manufacturers of Synthetic Organic Dyestuffs, had availed proforma credits for excise duty/countervailing duty paid on raw materials as per Rule 56-A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The main contention raised by the appellants was that they were unjustly denied the credit due to the failure to furnish D-3 intimation. The appellants argued that they were not required to pay countervailing duty at the time of import, and the demand arose after a significant portion of the raw material had already been used in production. They asserted that the procedural requirement of sending D-3 intimation was not applicable in their case. The Respondent Collector argued that the failure to give prior notice to the Proper Officer before receiving the duty paid material in the factory was a mandatory requirement under Rule 56-A(3), which the appellants had not fulfilled. The authorities justified the rejection of the claim based on this non-compliance. After considering the submissions from both sides, the Tribunal found that the denial of proforma credit solely based on the absence of D-3 intimation was unjustified. The Tribunal emphasized that the essence of availing proforma credit is the prior payment of excise/countervailing duty on raw materials used in the finished product. The Tribunal noted that the subsequent amendment to Rule 56-A also supported the view that strict compliance with procedural requirements may not be necessary in all circumstances. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, directing that the appellants be granted the consequential relief within three months from the date of the order. The decision highlighted the importance of considering the practical circumstances and the spirit of the law while interpreting procedural requirements in such cases.
|
