9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (2) TMI 434X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... used in such manufacture under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules during the said period. In 1993, they opted to operate under a quantity-based duty exemption entitlement certificate (DEEC) scheme by applying for licence under the said scheme and obtained such licence on 31-12-1993 covering 4 inputs namely Timber, Veneers, Phenol-Formaldehyde and Phenol. By the time they obtained the licence, they had already exported their final products in three consignments on 10-4-1993, 24-6-1993 and 8-8-1993 under the D.E.E.C. Scheme. At the time of export as above they had taken Modvat credit on Veneers as inputs used in the manufacture of the exported product, which amounted to Rs. 1,18,972/-. In February, 1994, the Appellants transferred their li ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dit taken on inputs used for the manufacture of the exported products should be reversed at a later stage after the transfer of the DEEC licence to a third party. In the absence of such condition, ld. Consultant has submitted, the amount of Modvat credit reversed at the instance of the department in October, 1994 ought to have been refunded to the appellants by the Assistant Commissioner by allowing the refund claim which was filed in time by them. He has, in this connection, drawn my attention to the condition No. vi laid down in the above Notification which reads thus: that where export goods are manufactured availing credit of central excise duty or additional customs duty, in respect of any of the materials permitted import under the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anted to make use of the licence for import of one of the inputs covered by the licence. On a careful examination of the aforesaid condition in the notification, I note that the Appellants were not entitled to transfer the licence as much as they had manufactured the exported goods after availing the credit of duty in respect of the veneer which were permitted to be imported under the said licence and which were used in such manufacture. It follows from this restriction that, in order to render the transfer of the licence lawful and regular the Appellants ought to have reversed the input credit taken on Veneers. What the Appellants did was only this. There is nothing on record to show that this reversal was done at the instance of the depar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
