9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (8) TMI 409X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ufactured Picture Tubes which are cleared for domestic as well as export market. They are availing the benefit of input credit under the Modvat scheme on Glass Shells as input. The appellants filed a refund claim of Rs. 27,09,587/- on 11-7-1997 for the period form 1-1-1997 to 28-2-1997 with regard to unutilized Modvat credits on exports of finished goods effected during this period. The Asstt. Commissioner sanctioned the amount of Rs. 27,09,587/- with the condition that the amount shall be disbursed to the assessee by way of a cheque on the assessee s submitting a proof of the reversal of the equivalent amount in the R.G. 23A Part II accounts. The assessee pleaded that the condition of Rule 57F(17) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 is not a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... puts was much higher, there was accumulation of credit of Modvat duty taken and since the goods were exported before 1-3-1997, the credit taken on the inputs was legally taken and therefore since the utilisation of that credit for payment of Central Excise Duty on other specified goods was not possible, hence the claim for refund was legal and valid. 4. Ld. Counsel submits that the Govt. of India had issued Notification No. 85/87, dated 1-3-1987 under Rule 57F. He submits that in terms of the procedure set out for claiming such refund, an application for refund together with the proof of export was lodged with the Asstt. Commissioner of Central Excise before the expiry of the period specified in Section 11B. He submits that Section 11B of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case of CCE, Jaipur v. M/s. Samtel India Ltd. in their order No. A/354/2000-NB, dated 17-4-2000 observed that Rule 57F(4)/57F(13) provides for grant of cash refund of outstanding Modvat credit on inputs used in the production of exported goods. The exports in the present case had taken place in 1996, therefore, the relevant credit for the purpose of refund would be of that period. This is the position declarified by the Board also in the clarificatory letter dated 12-12-1997. Therefore, we are of the view that there is no justification for denying the refund to the respondents or in asking them to reverse the credit earned on purchase of inputs during a subsequent period. The impugned order being in conformity with the instructions of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e not prescribed under sub-rule 13 of Rule 57F. Ld. Counsel, therefore, submits that in view of the above submissions and the case law cited and relied upon, the appeal may be allowed. 5. Shri V.M. Udhoji, ld. DR submits that in the instant case refund of Modvat credit has been denied on the ground that Modvat credit lapsed on 1-3-1997. He submits that in the instant case the appellants had filed the refund claim on 11-7-1997. He submits that on 11-7-1997, there was no credit available in respect of goods exported on or before 1-3-1997. He submits that sub-rule 17 of Rule 57F reads :- 17. Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (12) or Rule 57A, any credit of specified duty lying unutilised on the first day of March, 1997 with t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e to the facts of the present case in-as-much as the refund claim in the instant case was filed after 1-3-1997. Ld. DR also submits that the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Eicher Motors Ltd. v. U.O.I. relied upon by the assessee in para 6 held : 6. Thus a right accrued to the assessee on the day when they paid the tax on the raw materials or the inputs and that right would continue until the facility available thereto gets worked out or until those goods existed . He submits that in this case the facility got worked out with the lapse of credit on 1-3-1997. He submits that the inputs were used in the manufacture of finished goods and the finished goods were exported before 1-3-1997 and therefore, the goods were not existing in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsofar as the applicability of the ratio of the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Eicher Motors Ltd. is concerned, we find force in the argument of ld. DR. 8. We have also perused the provisions of Rule 57F(13). This Rule no doubt speaks of refund of duty where any inputs are used in final products which are cleared for export under bond or used in the intermediate products cleared for export in accordance with sub-rule 4, the credit of specified duty in respect of the inputs so used shall be allowed to be utilised by the manufacturer towards payment of duty of excise on any final products cleared for home consumption or for export on payment of duty and where for any such reason such adjustment is not possible then man ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
