9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (2) TMI 520X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 90 Dec. 1989 Rejected vide A.O No. 9/93-94/20-4-93 2. 40,37,536.16 dt. 26-7-90 March 1990 Rejected vide A.O No. 16/93-94/27-4-93 3. 10,63,599.73 dt. 24-4-91 December 1990 Rejected vide A.O No. 11/93-94/21-4-93 4. 20,12,954.04 dt. 30-8-91 March 1991 Rejected vide A.O No. 12/93-94/23-4-93 5. 8,78,867.53 dt. 15-10-1991 June 1991 Rejected vide A.O No. 5/93-94/16-4-93 6. 14,56,575.00 dt. 28-1-92 September 1991 Rejected vide A.O No. 7/93-94/16-4-93 As can be seen, the said refund claims were rejected by the Asstt. Commissioner on various grounds (which are common in all cases) as detailed in the individual orders. The claimant preferred appeals against the said Orders in Original and the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) vide his common order in Appeal Nos. 35 to 40-CE/DLH/94, dt. 28-1-94 remanded the claims back to the original adjudicating authority for re-adjudication with the directions that reasonable opportunity be given to the appellants to substantiate their claims in the light of guidelines recorded in the o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which this very claim was rejected by the authorities. The de novo remand was with certain directions. From the Order-in-Appeal No. 166/98, dated 18-3-98 we note that the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) on considering the Tribunal judgment in CCE, New Delhi v. Gavs Laboratories reported in 1997 (92) E.L.T. 696 (T) and CCE, Chandigarh v. Oswal Agro Mills reported in 1997 (93) E.L.T. 184 (T) = 1997 (18) RLT 607 (Cegat) relied upon by the appellants, held that linkage of DEEC scheme with the refund of Modvat credit under Rule 57F is not called for and hence not permissible. He accordingly held that, the denial of refund claim was on an erroneous appreciation of the legal position. The ld. Commissioner (Appeals) further held that this was the substantive legal ground for rejecting the refund. He accordingly directed that the claims are required to be considered without regard to the fact that the exports were under the DEEC scheme. 7. So far as the issue of jurisdiction is concerned, the ld. Commissioner held that the appellant is right in their contention regarding jurisdiction as the transfer of the raw material and export had taken place with the approval of the Central Excise authori ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5-4-1991 is stated to be in respect of the goods manufactured by M/s. Rajdoot Paints, Secunderabad. It is alleged that it is not clear as to how the detergent powder manufactured by M/s. Rajdoot Paints Inds. could have been cleared by the party on their AR4 as mentioned above. Besides the show cause notice also lists out certain discrepancies in the duty paying document as a result of which the refund claim is objected to. 12. As we have noted, that the Asstt. Commissioner was not required to stray into the area of linkage of refund claim and the DEEC. Having done that the said order was required to be quashed on that ground itself. It is also seen that the Order-in-Original also strays into the area of questioning the jurisdiction of the appellants in filing the refund claim for exports effected from the job workers premises. This ground was also not permissible to be raised, since the Order-in-Appeal dated 18-3-1998 had become final. The only area on which the AC was required to adjudicate upon was with reference to the deficiency in the claim on the documents submitted along with the claim. 13. As we note from the Order-in-Original No. 125/2001, the first discrepancy/defici ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Modvat credit which accrues only on receipt of duty paying inputs in the factory. Refund of credit can of course be denied if it is revealed that, the appellants could use the same for any other purpose. We do not find any such grounds applied for rejection. Therefore, we hold that the enquiry relating to the extent of use of duty free imported inputs in the export production was totally unwarranted and appellant s failure to furnish the information sought on this point cannot be considered to be a deficiency as alleged in the show cause notice. 16. So far as the objection regarding the export made directly from the job workers premises is concerned, while technically such an objection can be raised, however we note that there is no dispute regarding the fact that the exports have taken place. Refund in any case would be available only on the basis of statutory export documents. Absence of individual permission permitting direct exports from the job workers premises is a minor violation and cannot affect the substantial right of claim of refund of Modvat credit. In fact, under the proviso to erstwhile Rule 12(1) of the Central Excise Rules, the Commissioner had the powers to con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
