9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (12) TMI 427 - AT - Central ExciseRestoration of MODVAT credit - refund of interest - benefit of N/N. 203/92-Cus - amnesty scheme - case of Revenue is that there is no provision for restoration of the Cenvat Credit as has been rightly pointed out by the ld Commissioner (Appeals) - Held that - The Modvat credit availed by the assessee was used for payment of excise duty, though under protest and there is no provision for cash refund of such duty paid through Modvat credit. It is also relevant to consider rule 57L of the Rules which says that no credit of money on the inputs used in the manufacture of the final products shall be allowed if the final products are exempt from the whole of the duty of excise leviable thereon or is chargeable to nil rate of duty - Since, in the instant case, the said credit was utilized for payment duty, we do not think it proper to direct the authorities to reverse the entries in RG 23 A registers by giving them liberty to deny the availment of Modvat claim at a later point of time. Such a course of action has no sanction in law. The restoration/refund of the Modvat Credit under the said Rules is denied - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
Issues Involved:
1. Violation of Notification No. 203/92-Cus and Handbook of Procedure of EXIM Policy 1992-97. 2. Reversal of Modvat Credit and payment of interest under Amnesty Scheme. 3. Restoration of Modvat Credit and refund of interest. 4. Applicability of Rule 57F(13) of Central Excise Rules, 1944. 5. Limitation period for filing refund claims under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. Detailed Analysis: 1. Violation of Notification No. 203/92-Cus and Handbook of Procedure of EXIM Policy 1992-97: The appellant, a manufacturer of telephone instruments, had imported goods under the Value Based Advance Licensing Scheme (VBAL) and availed duty-free clearance under Notification No. 203/92-Cus. As per condition V(a) of the notification, the export obligation had to be discharged by exporting goods manufactured in India without availing input stage credit under Rule 56A or Rule 57A of Central Excise Rules, 1944. The appellant violated this condition by availing Modvat Credit on exported goods, leading to a demand for customs duty, penalty, and interest. 2. Reversal of Modvat Credit and Payment of Interest under Amnesty Scheme: The appellant reversed the Modvat Credit of ?9,34,076/- on inputs used in the manufacture of exported goods and paid interest of ?51,260/- after the deadline specified in the Ministry of Finance Circular No. 285/1/97-CX dated 10.01.1997. Consequently, the appellant was deemed ineligible for the Amnesty Scheme, and the demand for customs duty was upheld by the CEGAT, while interest and penalty were set aside. The Supreme Court dismissed the appellant's civil appeal and review petition. 3. Restoration of Modvat Credit and Refund of Interest: Post dismissal of their appeal by the Supreme Court, the appellant sought restoration of the reversed Modvat Credit and refund of the interest paid. The adjudicating authority and the Commissioner (Appeals) rejected this request, leading to the current appeal. The appellant argued for restoration under Rule 57F(13) and cited various case laws to support their claim. 4. Applicability of Rule 57F(13) of Central Excise Rules, 1944: The Tribunal found that Rule 57F(13) was not applicable as the exports were under the VBAL Licensing scheme and Notification 203/92-Cus, not under bond. The appellant did not cite any legal provision under the Central Excise Act or Rules that allowed for restoration of credit. The Tribunal emphasized that the appellant had chosen to avail the notification and should have applied for restoration/refund within the prescribed time period. 5. Limitation Period for Filing Refund Claims under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act: The Tribunal noted that the appellant's request for restoration/refund was made after 8 years, which was beyond the limitation period prescribed in Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. The Tribunal rejected the appellant's argument that the limitation period should exclude the time during which legal proceedings were pending, as these proceedings were related to availment of the notification, not the Modvat credit. Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the Commissioner (Appeals) that there was no provision for restoration of Modvat Credit in the Central Excise Act or Rules. The Tribunal also held that the request for restoration/refund was time-barred and not tenable. The Tribunal reiterated that it could not devise a procedure beyond the statutory provisions and upheld the rejection of the appellant's refund claim. The appeal was dismissed in its entirety.
|
