9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (4) TMI 284X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rmitting it to take the credit in the CENVAT account and utilize the same for payment of duty. The respondent used to manufacture dutiable and exempted goods and had availed Modvat Credit in respect of inputs used. It was following the practice to debit the Modvatable credit every month in RG-23A Part-II register on pro-rata basis after taking into account the percentage of the value of dutiable footwear and exempted/export footwear cleared from the factory. The practice was being followed from 1.3.1987. A show cause notice dated 08.01.1992 was issued by the Collector of Central Excise, Patna referring to the said practice being followed and the amount of credit taken under Rule 57A totaling to Rs. 86,09,189.97 resulting in short debit of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntal letter dated 15.10.1993 on the ground that it should halt till finalization of procedure and such denial resulted in accumulation of input credit for which the respondent went on reminding the authorities by different letters requesting that a suitable procedure may be devised and a system may be finalized as early as possible so that the respondent may not be deprived of its legitimate claim. It is also the admitted position that in the year 1994, the appellant utilized a sum of Rs. 46,29,977.97 out of the accumulated credit to discharge the duty liability claiming financial hardship, which was objected by the Department letter dated 28.11.1994 and the respondent was directed to deposit back the said amount under threat of penalty. A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Rs. 24,82,488/-, he may claim for refund of unutilized amount of credit for which the jurisdictional authority may be approached. The dispute however, could not be resolved even after 4th round of litigation and then in the 5th round of litigation, the appeal filed by the respondent against the order dated 16.8.2005 passed by the appellant-authorities rejecting the claim of the respondent for refund of unutilized credit amount of Rs. 74,12,954.22, by the impugned order dated 16.12.2008 the Tribunal after noting the entire history of litigations during its various stages and noting the stand of the Revenue that the restraint imposed by the jurisdictional Superintendent was automatically withdrawn/lifted in view of the Deputy Commissioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shed excisable goods lying in stock on the date when such option is exercised and after deducting the said amount from the balance, if any, lying in his credit, the balance, if any still remaining shall lapse and shall not be allowed to be utilized for payment of duty on any excisable goods, whether cleared for home consumption or for export." Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that in view of the fact that on account of the restraint imposed by the appellant-authorities the respondent was unable to utilize input credit lying in the account, hence irrespective of the provisions of Rule 57 H(7), the respondent ought to have been allowed to avail input credit and for further accumulation of which they were not at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
