9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (2) TMI 615X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is final product for fulfillment of export obligation under the scheme, no input stage credit should have been taken in respect of such export goods so that the benefit of exemption under the Notification could be availed in respect of imported raw materials. When the appellants made export of their final product in discharge of export obligation in relation to the raw materials imported by them, they had availed Modvat credit on the inputs used in the manufacture of such export goods. In other words, there was breach of condition-V of the Notification, which made the Revenue demand duty of customs on the raw materials imported. However, the department, while demanding duty on the imported raw materials, asked the appellants to reverse the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... heels of Circular No. 285/1/97-CX., dated 10-1-1997 issued by the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), Govt. of India. The Ministry s Circular and the Commissioner s Public Notice laid down the following formula: A = B x C D + B Where, A - Modvat credit to be reversed. B - Total value of exports under VABAL during the financial year, as declared in AR 4 (See 4 value). C - Total credit availed in RG-23A during the financial year on all inputs. D - Total value of goods cleared for home consumption during the financial year arrived at under Section 4. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder Section 14A of the Central Excise Act. Meanwhile, there was a Public Notice issued by the Commissioner of Customs Central Excise, Vadodara viz. Public Notice No. 3/97 dated 28-1-97, wherein also it had been clarified that the exporters could reverse the actual credit availed by them provided they were in a position to substantiate the same on the basis of the available records subject to satisfaction of the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise. The appellants chose to go by this Public Notice and, accordingly, quantified the actual input duty credit to be reversed within 31-1-97 so as to claim the benefit of amnesty announced by the Central Government. Apparently, it was on this basis that they effected the rever ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed the appeal subject to the outcome of the Writ Petition filed on the subject by the party before the Hon ble High Court of Delhi. The present appeal is directed against the appellate Commissioner s order. 3. We have heard both sides at length and also examined the records. It appears that the impugned order relates to the appellant s factory at Nashik. They have a factory at Bhandup too. In respect of both the factories, they had taken the issue to the Hon ble High Court of Delhi. They contended that they were not bound by the formula prescribed by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Vadodara in Public Notice No. 3/97. In the Writ Petition, they challenged this Public Notice and prayed that they should be allowed to avail t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the appellants have not chosen to withdraw their Writ Petition on the same subject pending before the Hon ble High Court of Delhi in relation to the Nashik factory. According to the learned SDR, any decision on the issue can only be subject to the outcome of the Writ Petition. 6. Alter giving careful consideration to the submissions, we find that the appellants had been consistently taking the position that they were entitled to the benefit of Public Notice No. 3/97 dated 28-1-1997 issued by the Commissioner of Customs Central Excise, Vadodara, wherein exporters like the appellants were permitted to reverse input duty credit on actual basis within the time limit prescribed by the Central Government in Circular dated 4-1-1997 (Amne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Chemicals Travancore Ltd. (supra). 7. In the light of our findings recorded above, we have got to examine the orders of the lower authorities. The original authority rejected the Cost Accountant s report: and insisted on the Board s formula dated 10-1-1997 to be followed. Its decision was sustained by the Commissioner (Appeals) without having regard to Public Notice No. 3/97 dated 28-1-1997. The appellate authority referred to the Cost Accountant s report but refused to accept the same on the ground that the reliance placed on the Public Notice was redundant . We find that the provisions contained in the above Public Notice of the Commissioner of Customs Central Excise, Vadodara as also in the Board s Circular dated 26-6-1997 were g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
