9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (11) TMI 158X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sistant Collector had rejected the refund claim on the ground that the amount in question had been voluntarily debited by them in their PLA towards duty on account of disallowance of Modvat Credit. The respondents herein had originally cleared one of their final products namely, MCI inserts on payment of duty by debit to their RG-23A Part II Account. It was held by the Assistant Collector that such payment of duty by utilising their Modvat Credit balance in their RG-23A Part II Account was not permissible as they had not declared the aforesaid product as one of their final products in their declaration filed under Rule 57G of Central Excise Rules. In response to the demand issued by the Department the respondents had debited the amount from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re, been pleaded that order of the Assistant Collector should be restored by setting aside the order-in-appeal. 3. When the appeal was called the appellant is represented by Shri Y.R. Kilania, JDR. The respondents are not present. I find that the notice had been issued to them by telegram on 1-11-1995. As there is no response from them I proceed to hear the learned Departmental Representative and dispose of the appeal on merits. 4. Shri Kilania supported the grounds urged in the appeal and pleaded that the same may be allowed. 5. I have considered the submission made by the learned Departmental Representative. I have carefully gone through the appeal and the connected record. I agree with the contention raised in the appeal that it is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the said final product in their declaration only subsequently. In the circumstances, the appeal filed by the Collector against the order-in-appeal deserves to be allowed. I order accordingly and set aside the order-in-appeal and restore the order-in-original passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Ludhiana. 6. The aforesaid decision would not, however, close the door as far as the respondents are concerned. They had no doubt wrongly availed of the Modvat Credit for payment of duty on MCI inserts by debiting their RG-23A Part II account. Once they had made good such wrong utilisation of Modvat Credit by payment of duty from their PLA, the RG-23A account which was debited earlier had to be restored. They are entitled for such ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
