9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (3) TMI 526X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nkaram, the learned Advocate who appeared on behalf of the appellants, narrated the chronology of events in both these appeals. E/709/2005 : 4. The appellants availed Modvat credit on Teflon Coated Glass Belt for Rs. 5,13,606.66. Proceedings were initiated for denying the said credit. The Assistant Commissioner ordered reversal of the credit on 31-1-1996. The appellant deposited the amount on 30-7-1996. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals), in his order dated 4-12-1997, remanded the matter to the Assistant Commissioner. Consequently, the appellant filed refund claim on 22-5-1998 for return of pre-deposit of the amount paid on 30-7-1996. The Assistant Commissioner rejected the Modvat credit on the item under Rule 57Q vide his order date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eriod from 4-12-1997 to 22-3-1999, the amount of Rs. 5,13,606.66 has been illegally held by the department even though the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the Assistant Commissioner s order on 4-12-1997. Hence, the appellant is entitled for appropriate interest for this period. Later events show that the refund of the amount was granted consequent to the CEGAT s order dated 28-9-2004. The appellant filed a refund claim on 28-10-2004 and the refund was granted on 27-1-2005. Therefore, there is actually no delay in sanctioning the refund amount consequent to the claim of the appellant. It was actually sanctioned within three months from the date of filing of the claim. Only lapse of the department was that on 4-12-1997, the Assistant Commiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... example, on 26-4-1996, Show Cause Notice was issued on the ground that the assessee had not withdrawn earlier declaration filed under Rule 57G. The ground for rejection is purely technical because even on the date of filing the refund claim, the fact that the impugned item is a part of Machinery was not in doubt and that fact was one of the reasons for denying Modvat credit as imposed. On 17-5-1996, the Assistant Commissioner rejected the refund claim making the assessee go to Commissioner (Appeals) again. In the appeal, the appellant stated that the earlier declaration under Rule 57G should not come in the way of allowing credit under capital goods since the declaration under capital goods was filed on 18-8-1994. On 11-11-1998, the Commis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , which disallowed Modvat credit, the appellant paid back the amount on 20-10-1995. The Assistant Commissioner s orders were upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) on 13-12-1995. It appears that the appellant has not appealed against that order. Therefore, the Commissioner (Appeals) s order dated 13-12-1995 had reached finality. No doubt, Modvat scheme on capital goods came into effect on 1-4-1994. However, in the present case, the goods were received much before the scheme came into operation. Therefore, it is not correct to claim Modvat on capital goods which were received prior to the introduction of Scheme. In such view of the matter, we very much doubt the entitlement of the appellant to the credit and consequent refund itself. Therefore ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
