9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (3) TMI 193X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 96, being the excess duty paid by the appellant on the finished product. The Assistant Collector sanctioned the refund claim partly allowing Cash refund only to the extent actual of Rs. 1,23,734.22, but made actual Cash refund in cash only of Rs. 89,89,366.87 and withheld cash repayment of the balance amount of Rs. 34,367.35 in view of the bar in the notification. Collector (Appeals) having dismissed the assessee s appeal, the present appeal has been filed. 3. The heading of Notification No. 201/79 as amended from time to time purports to be as follows :- Set-off of duty of excisable goods used in the manufacture of other excisable goods falling under T.I. 68. The body of the notification states that Government exempted all exisable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or by cheque. 4. The lower authorities have relied on Clause 9(b) of the appendix to the notification to deny cash refund of Rs. 34,6366.35 on the ground that payment of duty on the finished product to that extent had been not by cash or by debiting in the PL account but by debit in the RG 23 Part II register. On the same reasoning, the Assistant Collector allowed cash refund of Rs. 89,366.87 because that part of the duty on the finished product had been paid in cash or by debiting in PL account. 5. The terminonolgy used in the notification is somewhat confusing. There is an apparent contradiction between the three sets of expressions used in the notification, namely, set off , exemption from so much of the duty as is equivalent to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... id duty thereon in cash and subsequently applied for refund of the duty paid in cash on the finished product. Rule 56A contained a bar similar to the one contained in Notification No. 201/79. This is seen in clause (vi) of Rule 56A. It was argued on behalf of the manufacturer that what is barred is not cash payment but cash payment in excess of the quantum of excise duty leviable or in other words, what is barred is excess net claim by way of cash refund. The High Court accepted this contention and observed as follows : all that is sought is reduction of liability to pay excise duty on the final manufactured product. Ordinarily, such reduction of liability would be available through adjustment. In the instant case such adjustment could n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... credit admissible under Rule 56A with the result that they had to pay duty on their exciseable product by cash/cheque. Subsequently they sought refund of the duty so paid by them by cash/cheque. The Courts held that the refund amounts were payable to them by cheque. The bar on payment of refund in terms of Rule 56A(3)(vi)(b) was held to be not applicable for such refunds. In the present case, on the contrary, there was no restraint or refusal for the availment of the credit in question and the appellants had, in fact, used the credit for payment of duty on their final product. Refund was claimed by them not on the ground of refusal of permission to use the credit leading to additional utilisation of their Personal Ledger Account (PLA) to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
