9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (7) TMI 639X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er to examine each Appeal separately. Appeal No. E/1218/2005 2. In this Appeal the total disputed amount is Rs.14,08,949/- this amount is classified under three different headings and the submissions of the Appellants are recorded as under :- 2.1 Non Filing of Declaration under Rule 173 G CER 1944 before Receipt of Inputs (credit of Rs.14,25,580/-) Since various suppliers denote their products by varying specific names and as Appellant have been manufacturing customs built equipment, it was not always possible to declare the inputs especially fitments/components with specific nomenclature used by their suppliers. Nonetheless, immediately on receipt of the inputs were received declaration under Rule 173G was filed and cred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 60 (c) Indo American Electricals Vs. CCE 1999 (108) ELT 797 (T) (d) CCE Vs, Kumar Auto Cast 1996 (82) ELT 137 (T). In any case since the assessments were provisional and if the jurisdictional authorities were clear and consistent in their stand in that event the refund ought to have been allowed at the time of finalisation of assessments, since it is not in dispute that the amount was mistakenly debited and Appellants were entitled to the credit. 2.3 Credit on Part/Component of Capital goods (Rs.4,320/) The credit is denied on the ground that the Tariff headings under which the goods were classified where not specified in Rule 57 Q for allowing Cenvat credit on capital goods. The Appellants contest that they were entitled ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icate and permission to clear w.e.f. 16.9.1999 the transformer without payment of duty under Notification No. 108/95-CE dated 8.8.95. 3.1.2. Thus despite the fact that Appellant had duly submitted the requisite certificate in terms of Notification No. 108/95-CE on 15.9.1999, since formal permission was not conveyed to them by jurisdictional Supdt. C.E. they made the provisional debit in their RG-23A Part-II Account in October while clearing the transformers to M/s A.P. Transco. However, on receipt of the information about admissibility of exemption w.e.f. 15.9.1999 the Appellant passed a re-credit entry adjusting the provisional debits made within the same month. 3.1.3. Following rulings are also relied upon as regards re-crediting ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecorded against such matter in respect of appeal No. Appeal No. E/1218/2005 E/1221/2005 5. The total disputed amount in this appeal is Rs.19,97,158/-. This amount is split into two categories and the Appellants make the following submissions :- 5.1 Filing of Declaration after Receipt of Inputs (Credit Rs.14,25,580/) The submissions in the matter are the same as submissions already recorded against such matter in respect of appeal No. Appeal No. E/1218/2005 5.2 Re-credit Entry After 180 Days from date of issuance U/r 57F(4) in Modvated Inputs (After initial availment of credit) on receipt from Job Worker (Credit Rs.5,71,569/-) 5.2.1 The relevant provision sub rule 57F(4) & (5) at the material time stipulated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vat credit taken on inputs received back from job-worker to distinguish the case at hand from the facts of the cases already decided by Tribunal relating the said issues. 6.2 The Ld A. R. has contested that the action of the appellants in taking suo moto credit of duty already paid on goods is not proper. His contention is that if there is any excess payments made the appellants should have applied for refund and no such application has been filed in these cases and so such suo motto credit taken should be reversed. 6.3 He also strongly contests the issue of suo motto refund taken due to negative price variation and he contests that there is no provision for refunding of duty in such cases. He relies on the decision in BDH I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duty paid. Such refund has to pass through the test of time bar and unjust enrichment. So assessee could not have re-credited the amount in his account on his own without filing a refund claim. 11.2 However the appellants submit that the assessments are still provisional. This is to be confirmed by Revenue. If the assessments are provisional there cannot be any time bar in filing a refund claim. If such refund claim is filed Revenue shall process such claim and pass order as per law. 12. Thus the three appeals are disposed of allowing the appeals in all matters except that those relating to suo motto credits taken by the Appellants. In the matter of credit taken by the appellant by claiming exemption under notification 108/9 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
