9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (6) TMI 165X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tification No. 201/79, dated 4-6-1979 but the Superintendent of Central Excise did not grant permission to do so because of their failure to comply with the procedural requirements prescribed in the notification. Thereafter, M/s. ACC filed claims for refund of the duty involved in all the three cases relating to the three appeals before us and, on rejection of their claims by the Assistant Collector, they preferred appeals to the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Calcutta. While the appeals in the first two cases in which M/s. ACC are the appellants were rejected, the third one in which the department is the appellant before us was allowed in favour of M/s. ACC by Collector (Appeals). 2. The questions which arise for our consideration are: (a) whether credit of duty was at all permissible under Notification No. 201/79 to M/s. ACC when the manufacturer (M/s. TBCO in this case) themselves had paid the duty under protest because of a dispute; , (b) the dispute was whether blast furnace slag was excisable and was subsequently settled in favour of M/s. TISCO by an order of the Tribunal (Order No. 815/80-B1, dated 17-12-1986), with the result that there was no liability to dut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0-2-1981. 6. There being a specific condition in Notification No. 201/79 that no part of the credit is to be refunded, both the lower authorities have rightly rejected the claim of M/s. ACC for refund of duty. We uphold their orders and reject the appeal on this count. 7. So far as the claim for availing of the set-off of duty on Calcium Carbonate sludge and Phosphor Gypsum supplied by the Sindri Fertiliser Plant is concerned, it appears to us that it should be entertained by the authorities and there is no reason why it should be denied only on the ground of technicalities provided the conditions prescribed in Notification No. 201 /79 are fulfilled. It will also be necessary for the authorities to remember that the matter being 10 years old, they should decide the claim expeditiously. 8. We now proceed to decide the fourth appeal (E/2444/88-D) which, though argued alongwith the other three, involves a different question. M/s. ACC, Sindri Cement Works have not been allowed by Assistant Collector, Dhanbad to utilise the credit balance of Rs. 10,23,243.88 as on 28-2-1986 lying in RG-23 Part II on inputs because Notification No. 201/79 was rescinded with effect from 1-3-1986. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated in Notification No. 201 /79 was to relieve the final product from the cascading effect of excise duty and the benefit of such exemption materialises when the final product (the finished goods) are cleared from the factory. In the instant case when the time for clearance of the finished goods in which the inputs were used came, the duty relief scheme itself stood rescinded. In such a situation, the order of Collector (Appeals) for refund of balance amount of unutilised credit lying in the assessees account is contrary to law on two counts : First, that it would amount to effectuating Notification No. 201 /79 when it is no longer in existence and secondly even if considered in terms of requirements of the notification, it would militate against Clause 9(b) of the notification which forbade refund in clear and categorical language. Clause 9 of the notification which is as under :- 9.(a) The credit of duty taken in respect of any inputs may be utilised towards payment of duty on any said goods for the manufacture of which such inputs were declared by the manufacturer to be brought into the factory, or where such inputs are cleared from the factory as such, on such inputs." ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elevant date; Provided that the limitation of six months shall not apply where any duty has been paid under protest. (2) If on receipt of any such application, the Assistant Collector of Central Excise is satisfied that the whole or any part of the duty of excise paid by the applicant should be refunded to him, he may make an order accordingly. (emphasis supplied). 13. In terms of the provisions of sub-section (2), it is clear that refund of duty can be made to the person who has made the payment. The law does not provide for refund of duty paid by one person to another person. This being the law governing refund of duties, it follows that, in the present case, refund of duties which were paid by TISCO or other parties cannot be made to M/s. ACC. Even otherwise, it is clear that the word credit has an altogether different connotation and there is no provision for refund of any amount equivalent to the amount of credit to a person who holds the credit of duty paid by another person. What M/s. ACC are trying to do is to avail of the benefit of exemption notification even after it had been rescinded, by claiming refund of an amount equivalent to the amount of credit of duty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
