2005 (1) TMI 155 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against rejection of refund claim of Rs. 8,42,385
- Interpretation of Notification No. 6/2000-C.E.
- Entitlement to benefit of exemption notification

Analysis:
The appellant filed an appeal against the rejection of their refund claim of Rs. 8,42,385 by the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellant, engaged in manufacturing paper falling under Chapter 48 of the Tariff, availed credit and cleared goods under a March 2000 exemption notification. They reversed credit to avail the exemption, deposited duty, and applied for a refund of Modvat credit, which was allowed by the Assistant Commissioner. However, the appellant again reversed credit and filed another refund claim, which was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner and subsequently dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals).

The appellant contended that they had already reversed the credit during March 2000, making them eligible for the benefit of the notification. They cited a Supreme Court decision to support their argument. On the other hand, the Revenue argued that since the appellant availed credit and cleared goods under the exemption notification, they were not entitled to its benefits. The Revenue highlighted that the appellant reversed credit, paid duty, and filed a refund claim, indicating they had already availed the credit for inputs during March 2000.

The dispute centered around the duty paid in March 2000 under Notification No. 6/2000 granting exemption to the appellant's manufactured goods. The appellant sought to benefit from the notification rules. The Tribunal noted that the appellant could not claim credit for duty paid on inputs for exempted final products. The Tribunal differentiated the present case from the Supreme Court case cited by the appellant, emphasizing that all goods manufactured by the appellant were exempted in March 2000. As the appellant had already availed credit and filed a refund claim, which was allowed, the Tribunal upheld the rejection of the refund claim, finding no error in the Commissioner's decision. Thus, the appeal was dismissed.