9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (11) TMI 183X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -1-1996 was upheld. 2. Briefly, facts are that the appellants have utilised the credit accumulated on the inputs used for final product which was exported, for payment of duty on goods manufactured by them for others i.e., CIPLA LTD., on loan licence basis for manufacture of MEBEX tablets. It was alleged in the show cause notice that such utilisation is not permissible in terms of Rule 57F(3) and hence duty demand was computed by issuing show cause notice. It was pleaded before the authorities that the Tribunal in their own case as per Order No. 656/96 had noted that in terms of Rule 57F(3) they are entitled to the benefit of Modvat in respect of duty paid on inputs to manufacture of final products which had been exported. The Tribuna ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Advocate also points out that the order relied by the Commissioner had not been contested on merits and therefore the Tribunal had not given any findings, while in their own case, there is a detailed order on merit and therefore the same was required to have been followed. Further, in the case of Indian Steel Rolling Mills Ltd., as in 1996 (86) E.L.T. 114 (Tribunal) it was held that if accumulated Modvat credit earned from inputs which were used in goods finally exported, was not used up within 3 months, a cash refund thereof was permissible under Rule 57F(3). This view is supportive of the view taken by Hon'ble Tribunal in their own case noted supra as it had been observed therein that such cash refund is available. In their case more tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s :- "We observe that the claim for the Modvat credit is in terms of Rule 57F(3). The appellants have been ruled out for having utilised the accumulated Modvat credit for patent and proprietary medicines which were different from those which were exported even though the medicines exported and those cleared for home consumption for utilising the Modvat credit had certain common ingredients. The question to be considered is whether the two sets of medicines cleared are to be taken to be similar. We observe that it is not disputed that the medicines exported and those cleared from the appellants factory on job work basis were patent and proprietary medicines falling under the same tariff heading. In the overall context of the Modvat Scheme t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e credit attributable to inputs contained in the exported goods can be even allowable by each refund and in respect of the use of which for payment there could not be any restriction. There is no need to read this provision very strictly and technically so long as it can be shown that Modvat credit has been utilised for payment of duty on the goods which answer to the same description as exported under the tariff. In the present case, we observe that the goods exported and on those Modvat credit has been utilised have been considered to be same. We observe that the learned lower authority was in error in not allowing the appellants to avail the benefit of accumulated Modvat credit. We therefore set aside the order of the learned lower autho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
