Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2002 (1) TMI 405

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the benefit of proforma credit under Rule 56A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 totally amounting to Rs. 83,45,027.21 on the wrapping paper brought from outside and used in wrapping the paper manufactured and cleared by them on payment of duty. This benefit was initially denied to them but however, relying on the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of C.C.E. v. Eastend Paper Industries reported in 1989 (43) E.L.T. 201, their liability to the proforma credit in respect of the duty paid on the wrapping paper was accepted. Consequently, the appellants filed a refund claim of Rs. 83,45,027.21 on 6-2-97 being the duty paid on the wrapping paper purchased by them from outside during this period on which the appropriate excise duty had a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... richment. On these facts and with reference to the provisions of Clause (c) of Section 11B(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the Asstt. Collector in his order has held that the appellants had already recovered the duty paid on inputs and any payment of refund in respect of such duty would simply be nothing else but unjust enrichment to them. He has further held that since the case pertains to refund of proforma credit under Rule 56A, it is not feasible to pass an order to credit the same to the fund in terms of the aforestated clause of the Act. Consequently, the Asstt. Collector has rejected the refund claim of the party. 2. The party filed an appeal and the same is disposed of by the impugned order dated 3-5-2001 of Commissioner (Appe .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... was not being recovered from the customers. It is stated that prior to 16-3-1976, paper was attracting central excise duty at specific rates and the practice followed by the appellants for raising invoice and payment of duty was as follows : Net weight of printing and wrapping paper 100 kgs. Weight of wrapping paper used 10 kgs. Total gross weight 110 kgs. Basic rate of sale price for printing and writing paper Rs. 25/- per kg. Basic sale price - 110 x Rs. 25 Rs. 2750/- Excise Duty on 100 kgs. of printing and writing paper @ Rs. 0.25/- kg. Rs. 25/- Excise duty @ Rs. 0.32 per kg. on 10 kgs. of paper Rs. 3.20 Total amount billed t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e in the contention of the appellants and the same is accordingly rejected upholding the findings arrived at by the lower authority in his order. 5. The appellants are however making a further submission that the refund claim relates to the duty paid on the wrapping paper purchased from the market and used as an input in the manufacture of printing and writing paper. Thus it is contended that the refund is claimed in respect of the credit which was initially denied but subsequently held to be admissible to them. The appellants refer to Clause (c) of the proviso to Section 11B(2) of the Act which provides that the amount of duty of excise as determined shall, instead of being credited to the fund, be paid to the applicants, if such amount .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates