9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 949X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ION, CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [ 2013 (9) TMI 93 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] . The duty on imports in that case had also been paid by way of debit to DEPB scrips and the question of law that was decided was whether such debit was correct in light of Notification 34/97 Customs dated 07.04.97 and the provisions of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002. The stipulations under Notification dated 03.04.97 cannot under any circumstances be held to be a limitation for the purpose of claim of MODVAT. There does not appear to be anything available to show that this decision has been reversed in appeal. Hence, and applying the ratio of the decision of this Court in the case of SPIC Ltd., the direction of the writ court in granting refund of a s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y of debit to the DEPB scrips. 3. Hence by way of abundant action, the sought petitioner remitted the entirety of the duty once again on 19.7.1999, and made an application on 27.08.1999 seeking re-credit of the duty to the account of DEPB scrips. That application has come to be rejected by way of an Order-in-Original dated 16.01.2001. 4. The reasoning for rejection is that Section 27 of the Customs Act which provides for grant of refunds, requires an assessee to make an application within a period of six months from the assessment of duty. In the present case, the application was made on 27.8.1999 as against credits made during the period 21.8.1998 and 17.12.1999. Hence it was dismissed as barred by limitation. 5. The matter was carried in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f MODVAT credit is contrary to law in cases where credit had been remitted by way of adjustment to DEPB scrips. 9. This issue is no longer res integra as it has been considered and decided in favour of the assessee in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai 1 v SPIC Ltd [2014 (305) ETL 484] . The duty on imports in that case had also been paid by way of debit to DEPB scrips and the question of law that was decided was whether such debit was correct in light of Notification 34/97 Customs dated 07.04.97 and the provisions of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002. 10. The facts have been set out at paragraph 3 of that decision and the Bench notes that that assessee had not paid additional duty under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act in cash ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d; (iii) The said Duty Entitlement Pass Book is produced before the proper officer of Customs for debit of the duties leviable on the goods but for exemption contained herein. Provided that exemption from duty shall not be admissible if there is insufficient credit in the said Duty Entitlement Pass Book for debiting the duty leviable on the goods but for this exemption. (iv) The said Duty Entitlement Pass Book shall be valid for twelve months from the date of issue or such extended period as may be granted by the Licensing Authority for import and export only, at the port of registration which shall be one of the sea ports at Mumbai, Calcutta, Cochin, Kandia, Mangalore, Marmagoa, Chennai, Nhava Sheva, Paradeep, Tuticorin, Visakhapatnam, Kak ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Commissioner of Customs, binding himself to pay on demand duty leviable on goods imported but for the exemption contained herein together with interest at the rate of 24% per annum from the date of clearance in this event of his failure to make exports and earn credits thereon to set-off the provisionals credits allowed: Provided that in the case of import against provisional credits, the exemption shall be permitted only for such goods which are in the nature of inputs required for use in the production of goods in the factory of the Duty Entitlement Pass Book holder or in the factory of supporting manufacturer as specified in the said Duty Entitlement Pass Book and such inputs are not transferred, loaned, sold, parted with or disposed of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, and applying the ratio of the decision of this Court in the case of SPIC Ltd., with which we concur, we confirm the direction of the writ court in granting refund of a sum of Rs. 28,42,745/- paid in cash by the petitioner on 19.07.1999. The question of re-credit to the DEPB scrips does not arise as the scrip has itself expired. 14. As a footnote, we may clarify this on the aspect of limitation. The petitioner had remitted the duty in cash on 19.07.1999 and the claim for re-credit has been made on 27.8.99 within a period of six months from the day of payment as aforesaid. The application has thus been made within the period of limitation as stipulated under Section 27 of the Act. 15. For the aforesaid reasons, we confirm the order of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
