1999 (6) TMI 337 - AT - Central Excise

Issues:
Refund claim rejection under Rule 57F(4) of the Central Excise Rules.

Analysis:
The appellant, a manufacturer of CRCA Steel Strips sheets, filed a refund claim under Rule 57F(4) of the Central Excise Rules after reversing Modvat credit totaling Rs. 4,08,022 as per the Range Superintendent's direction. The claim was rejected by the Assistant Collector, Saharanpur, citing non-compliance with Notification No. 85/87 and ineligibility due to availing benefits under Notification No. 203/92-Cus. The Collector (Appeals) upheld the rejection, emphasizing the ineligibility for Modvat credit due to participation in D.E.E.C. and VABL schemes. The appellant's representative argued that the claim was not under the duty drawback scheme, and denial of Modvat credit conflicted with the spirit of the scheme. Additionally, reference was made to Circular No. 285/1/97-CX for potential relief. The Department contended that the Amnesty Scheme admission indicated ineligibility for Modvat credit. The Tribunal noted discrepancies in the lower authorities' consideration of the appellant's submissions and directed a remand to the Assistant Commissioner for a comprehensive review, including examination of the Special Scheme announced by the Government in January 1997.

This judgment primarily addresses the rejection of a refund claim under Rule 57F(4) of the Central Excise Rules by the appellant, a manufacturer of CRCA Steel Strips sheets. The appellant's claim was dismissed by the Assistant Collector and subsequently by the Collector (Appeals) based on non-compliance with applicable notifications and ineligibility due to participation in certain schemes. The appellant's representative argued against the denial of Modvat credit, highlighting discrepancies in the authorities' consideration and referencing a potential relief under Circular No. 285/1/97-CX. The Department contended that the appellant's participation in the Amnesty Scheme indicated ineligibility for Modvat credit. The Tribunal, noting the overlooked submissions and potential relief schemes, remanded the matter to the Assistant Commissioner for a thorough review and consideration of all aspects raised by the appellant, emphasizing the need for a well-reasoned decision after affording the appellant an opportunity to be heard.

This judgment delves into the complexities surrounding the rejection of a refund claim under Rule 57F(4) of the Central Excise Rules by the appellant, a manufacturer of CRCA Steel Strips sheets. The appellant's claim was initially turned down by the Assistant Collector and subsequently by the Collector (Appeals) on grounds of non-compliance with relevant notifications and ineligibility due to participation in specific schemes. The appellant's representative argued against the denial of Modvat credit, pointing out discrepancies in the authorities' consideration and suggesting potential relief under Circular No. 285/1/97-CX. The Department countered by citing the appellant's participation in the Amnesty Scheme as evidence of ineligibility for Modvat credit. The Tribunal, recognizing the overlooked submissions and relief options, decided to remand the matter to the Assistant Commissioner for a comprehensive review, emphasizing the importance of considering all appellant's submissions and exploring potential relief schemes announced by the Government.

← Previous Next →