9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (6) TMI 337X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d exported their goods under the VABL scheme. They had availed of Modvat credit in respect of imported inputs totally amounting to Rs. 4,08,022/-. As per the direction of the Range Superintendent as contained in the letter dt. 30-3-1995, they reversed the total amount of Modvat credit. Subsequently they filed a claim for refund of Rs. 4,08,022/- under Rule 57F(4) of the Central Excise Rules. The Assistant Collector, Saharanpur, rejected the claim for refund of duty, holding that the claim had not been prepared according to the provisions of Notification No. 85/87, dt. 1-3-1987 issued under Rule 57F(4); that refund of Modvat credit is only admissible when credit could not be utilised towards payment of duty on final goods cleared for home c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d any countervailing duty (CVD) been charged, then there could be any logic of denial of Modvat credit; that customs authorities had declined to allow import of 52.600 M.T. duty free import entitlement under VABL scheme. He contended that on the one hand the Appellants were forced to reverse the credit and on the other hand the refund duty free import entitlement had also been denied which is against the spirit of Modvat scheme the ld. Chartered Accountant also mentioned that remaining import of H.R. Coils under duty free import entitlement under VABL scheme had not been imported as DEEC Book was cancelled supposedly on the ground that Modvat credit was availed of by the Appellants; that the advance licence had been revalidated; that even w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ence. It is observed that both the lower authorities had not considered these submissions of the Appellant. Further, the Appellants have referred to the scheme announced by the Government for reversal of Modvat credit and payment of interest where exports were effected under Value Based Advance Licence before 31-1-1997 under Special Scheme. In the interest of justice, it is felt that the matter should go back to the Assistant Commissioner for reconsidering all the aspects raised by the Appellants and also to examine whether the Special Scheme announced by the Government in January, 1997 is available to the appellants. I, therefore, remand the matter to the Assistant Commissioner with the direction to consider all the submissions of the Appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
