9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (5) TMI 448X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... per : C.N.B. Nair, Member (T)]. Appellant is a manufacturer of Bulk Drugs. Some of the consignments of bulk drugs manufactured by the appellant were exported by others. Those exports were under Advance Licence Scheme and covered by Notification No. 203/92-Cus., dated 19-5-1992. It was a condition of that Notification that no input credit should have been taken in respect of the inputs used i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Modvat credit. Accordingly, the appellant reversed a credit amount of over Rs. 31.5 lakhs. Subsequently, the appellant claimed refund of the credit so reversed on the plea that they had not carried out any exports under DEEC Scheme and therefore, the Amnesty Scheme did not apply to them. It was further contended that, in any event, since the credit had been reversed much ahead of the Amnesty Sc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... SDR s submission is that the appellant s contention that they were not covered by Notification No. 203/92 of the Amnesty Scheme is not correct. He has pointed out that the appellant s reversal of credit was an admission that the export of goods manufactured by it were under Notification No. 203/92. Learned SDR has contended that, having thus admitted that the exports were covered under Notificati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ey considered that further payment was called for, they should have issued demand within normal time limit. Even when the Amnesty Scheme to compound the violation of the notification was issued in January 1997, the appellant did not apply to avail of it. The authorities are compelling it. An Amnesty Scheme is for offenders to opt for and not for revenue authorities to enforce. In these facts and c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
