2013 (4) TMI 502 - AT - Central Excise

Claim the refund of amount of deemed credit - Notification. No. 29/96-C.E. (N.T.) - Held that - AR-4s does indicate debit of 50% of the amount of basic excise duty payable by the assessee in the bond and balance in the deemed credit register. Since the appellant-assessee has utilized the amount of deemed credit which is eligible to them, the refund claims which has been filed by him and rejected by the adjudicating authority seems to be in accordance with the law - the orders in original rejecting the refund claims filed by the assessee are correct and hence the orders of the first appellate authority rejecting the orders in original are liable to be set-aside

Summary

Issues:
Interlinked issues in six appeals regarding refund claims of unutilized balance of deemed credit under Notification No. 29/96-C.E. (N.T.) for excisable goods cleared for export under bond.

Analysis:
1. Background:
- The appeals involve the department's challenge against the first appellate authority's decision to allow refund claims filed by the assessee for unutilized deemed credit under Notification No. 29/96-C.E. (N.T.) for goods cleared for export under bond.

2. Claim for Refund:
- The appellant-assessee cleared excisable goods for export under bond and filed refund claims for unutilized deemed credit balance.
- The adjudicating authority rejected the refund claims, stating the appellant had no balance in the deemed credit register.

3. Contentions:
- The department argued that the appellant had consumed 50% of the deemed credit available, as shown in the AR-4 form, and thus, was not eligible for a refund.
- The assessee contended that although they availed the deemed credit, they did not utilize it, highlighting the distinction between availing and utilizing credit.

4. Legal Provisions:
- The issue revolved around the eligibility of the assessee to claim a refund of unutilized deemed credit under Notification No. 29/96-C.E. (N.T.) for goods exported under bond.

5. First Appellate Authority's Findings:
- The first appellate authority allowed the refund claims, emphasizing that even if the deemed credit was utilized for duty payment, the appellant was entitled to a refund under relevant provisions.
- The authority noted that procedural lapses should not deny the substantial benefit of deemed credit to manufacturers.

6. Judgment:
- The appellate tribunal found errors in the first appellate authority's decision, emphasizing that the appellant had utilized the deemed credit and was not eligible for a refund.
- The tribunal upheld the original orders rejecting the refund claims and dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee against the demand confirmation and refund recovery.

7. Conclusion:
- The tribunal allowed the appeals filed by the Revenue and rejected the appeal filed by the assessee, concluding that the appellant had already utilized the credit and was not entitled to a refund under Notification No. 29/96-C.E. (N.T.).