9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (6) TMI 539X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of exported goods. The claim was filed on 18.3.98. The amount ultimately paid only on 02.2.2000. The appellant's contention was that the period should have been counted from 18.3.98 [filing of the claim]. 3. The submission of the learned counsel of the appellant is that the issue of credit against original copy of invoice remains settled by the judgments of the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Ludhiana vs. Ralson India Ltd, as reported in 2006 (77) RLT 36 (P and H)=2006 (202) ELT 759 (P and H). The learned counsel would explain that the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court was rendered in an appeal filed by the revenue against the Tribunal's order in the case of the same ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e (3). It provides that a manufacturer may take credit on the inputs received in his factory on the basis of original invoice, if duplicate copy of the invoice has been lost in transit, subject to the satisfaction of the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise that: (i) the inputs have been received in the factory of the said manufacturer and (ii) the duty was paid on such inputs. The scope of satisfaction of the Assistant Commissioner is restricted to the two aforenoted aspects. From a conjoint reading of sub-rules (3) and (6), the intent and object of the Legislature is manifestly clear. It is to prevent the misuse of the Modvat claims and any fraud being played by a manufacturer. Being a beneficial legislation, its object of input duty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch are under challenge in the appellate fora. In the present case, even though the refund order for an amount of ₹ 15,73,149/- was passed on 16.11.1998. The same was not actually paid to the appellants and adjusted against some pending demands under Section 11 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Section 11 is reproduced below: SECTION 11. Recovery of sums due to Government. - In respect of duty and any other sums of any kind payable to the Central Government under any of the provisions of this Act or of the Rules made thereunder (including the amount required to be paid to the credit of the Central Government under Section 11D), the officer empowered by the [Central Board of Excise and Customs constituted under the Central Boards of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed. To put in other words, those demands cannot be called as arrears. There is a possibility that these demands could be set aside by the Commissioner (A) of the Tribunal or any other judicial forum. That is why large number of decisions hold that refund cannot be adjusted against the demands which are sub-judice. In the present case, the action of the authorities in adjusting the refund is against the legal provisions. Section 11 should be involved only when the demands have reached finality and should not be invoked even at the initial stage. Section 11BB provides interest for delayed refunds. This is squarely applicable to the present case. The Commissioner (A) has not at all given any reason as to why the said section is not applicable. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
