9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog1996 (6) TMI 165X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeals), New Delhi rejecting their two appeals before him and upholding two orders-in-original passed by Assistant Collector of Central Excise. The Assistant Collector had, by his said; two orders, rejected the refund claims filed by the appellants wherein they had claimed refund of the amounts reversed by them in their RG-23A Part II account of Modvat credit relating to the inputs received by them and used in the manufacture of their final product, Acrylic Fibre/Tow removed to various customers under Rule 191BB of Central Excise Rules and Notification No. 33/90 without payment of Central Excise duty. They claimed the refund amounts of Rs. 7,73,373.95 and Rs. 15,55,180.13 on the ground that their clearance of their final product in the afor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ir case for refund of the amount debited by them in their RG-23A account is fully covered by the Tribunal decision in Orissa Synthetics Limited v. Collector of Central Excise, Bhubaneswar reported in 1995 (77) E.L.T. 350. He pleaded that following the said decision their appeals be allowed. 4. Shri Sanjeev Sachdeva, Senior Departmental Representative opposed the plea and supported the impunged orders. 5. We have considered the submissions. We have perused the record. We have also noted the Tribunal decision referred to by Shri Haksar. One of us (Technical Member, K. Sankararaman) was a party to that decision. The said decision took note of the Delhi High Court decision in Hindustan Aluminium Corporation Limited v. Collector of C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... E.L.T. 595. In the last mentioned case, besides the Orissa Synthetics decision and the Delhi High Court judgment in the Hindustan Aluminium Corporation case and the Law Ministry's advice, note was also taken of the first proviso to sub-rule (3) of Rule 57F [sub-rule (4) at present] which provides that the credit of duty in respect of inputs used in the final products cleared for export under bond or used in the intermediate products cleared for export shall be allowed to be utilised towards payment of duty on similar final products cleared for home consumption. It was observed by the Tribunal in that case that the Scheme relating to exports without payment of duty envisaged in the Rules 13, 191B and 191BB has been dovetailed in the Modvat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vat credit reversed by them in their RG-23A Part II account. Such reversal by them was not by way of payment of any duty. They reversed it under the impression that as their final product in question was being cleared by them without payment of duty, Rule 57C would be applicable and the credit of duty taken was liable to be reversed. Later on they felt that this was not correct and hence filed refund claims for recredit of such reversed amounts to their RG-23A Part II account. While rejecting the refund claims as a whole it has been stated in the order-in-appeal and order-in-original dealt with in the present Appeal E/1768/94 that a sum of Rs. 3,77,970.27 out of the total refund claimed of Rs. 15,55,180.31 was time barred. As we have held t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Lac and Paint Works Limited reported in 1991 (52) E.L.T. 590. If that be so, we believe that the view taken by CEGAT is just and proper and is in accordance with the general scheme of the Act and the Rules and the scheme of MODVAT. Therefore, the contention that the provisions of Section 11B of the Act will not apply has no substance and the same is rejected. The contention that for cases falling under Section AAA in Chapter 5 of the Rules which contain Rule 57K to Rule 57P no period of limitation applies is not correct." 8. The Tribunal decision in Mysore Lac which has been approved by the Gujarat High Court in Wipro related to cases where credit had been short taken originally which was sought to be taken subsequently the categoric ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not apply in view of the Clause C in the first proviso to sub-section (2) of the said Section. 10. As far as the other Appeal E/1342/94 is concerned, there is demand of Rs. 27,906.00 which is contested in the appeal besides rejection of refund claim of Rs. 7,73,373.95. The refund claim would be admissible in view of the finding reached by us that Rule 57C would not be applicable. A sum of Rs. 26,493/- out of the demanded amount relates to credit held to be short debited by the appellants under Rule 57C. As we have held that no reversal of credit under that Rule is called for the amount demanded on that score is not due. The appeal succeeds accordingly. We, however, uphold the impugned order insofar as the amount of Rs. 1,413/- is conc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
