9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (5) TMI 637X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be, arising at intermediate stage and used captively was under dispute during the period 13-1-1976 to 31-12-1981. The total amount demanded vide nine show cause notices during the relevant period was ₹ 26,40,050/-. The CEGAT (now CESTAT) held against the appellants vide order dated 9-3-1984. The Appellants filed appeal before Supreme Court and without contesting the levy on the intermediate products, took an alternative plea of eligibility to the benefit of set off under Notification No 71/71-C.E. dated 29-5-1971. Meanwhile, as per interim order dated 25-4-1988 of the Supreme Court, the Appellants also deposited an amount of ₹ 6,60,012/61 during the pendency of the Appeal. While disposing the Civil Appeals, the Hon ble Supreme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellants approached the Department for refund of the amount of pre-deposit of ₹ 6,60,000/- with a claim that they had complied with the provisions of Rule 56A and that they had also shown that the intermediate products were used in the manufacture of the end product, on which full duty was paid. Accordingly, the said amount should be refunded. 4. After series of representations, exchange of letters and exhausting the avenues of filing appeal in the High Court of Bombay for expeditious disposal of their claim, the Commissioner, Central Excise. Pune (Respondent) vide order dated 28-9-2001 held that I find no basis or occasion to pass any order in the matter . It is against the said order dated 28-9-2001 passed by Commissioner, Cent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d : (ii) to permit the appellants to claim set off of the duty payable on the intermediary product by satisfying the Collector that the same was used in the manufacture of the end product on which full duty had already been paid. (iii) On such satisfaction being recorded, the appropriate consequential orders would be passed. In other words, the appellants were to satisfy the Department as regards: (i) the conditions prescribed under Rule 56A which need to be followed (except those which strictly were impossible because the time had elapsed). (ii) Unlike the current Cenvat scheme, the proforma credit scheme under the erstwhile Rule 56A was not very liberal. The same envisaged one to one correlation of inputs used ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aim of refund or demand, as the case may be, could be made by the appellants or the respondents respectively. As the appellants have not furnished the evidences before the Commissioner for his satisfaction on the above lines, the impugned Order passed by the Commissioner is proper and legal. The claim of the appellants for refund of pre deposit is pre mature and is liable to be rejected. 10. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the records. We find that the Hon ble Supreme Court s directions extend the advantage of allowing the appellants to comply, at this stage, with requirements of Rule 56A and then to claim set off of duty payable on intermediary product by satisfying the Commissioner that the same was used ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
