9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (7) TMI 186X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tilising the said MODVAT Credit. 1.1.The appellants sold their goods in the indigenous market as well as they exported substantial quantities of goods under B-1 Bond. Hence there had been huge accumulation of credits in RG-23A Pt. II Account. 1.2.In terms of the erstwhile proviso to Rule 57F(3) of the said Rules, credit of specified duty on the inputs used in the manufacture of the final products cleared for export under Bond or used in the intermediate product cleared for export in accordance with sub-rule (2) would be allowed to be utilised towards payment of duty of excise on similar final products cleared for home-consumption on payment of duty and where for any reason such adjustment was not possible, by refund, to the manufacturer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sioner of Central Excise (Appeals) decided the five appeals vide his common Order-in-Appeal No. 46-50/GSR/92, dated 29-9-1992. The Commissioner (Appeals) in his Order dealt with each of the grounds on the basis of which the refund claims were rejected and he had given his findings in the said Order. He remanded the cases to the Assistant Commissioner with specific directions to the Assistant Commissioner to finalise the refund claims as per his instructions. No appeal was filed by the Department against the said Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) of Central Excise. It has been mentioned by the Assistant Commissioner in his Order dated 26-2-1993 that the Order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was accepted by the Commissioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 11A had not been complied with. It was stressed that for realisation of the erroneous refund, the provisions of Section 11A are to be followed. Reliance was placed on a number of decisions. 1.9.The Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Calcutta under his Order-in-Appeal Nos. 42-45/PAT/95, dated 31-10-1995 (p/468-478) observed that the conditions as envisaged in proviso to Rule 57F(3) [now 57F(4)] of the said Rules and Notification No. 85/87-C.E., dated 1-3-1987 are to be fulfilled and those needed further verification by the Assistant Commissioner. He also observed that verification in respect of one case was necessary as to whether the inputs suffered duty had actually been used in the manufacture of goods for export. He also obs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ; (iii) 1996 (86) E.L.T. 460 (S.C.) in the case of UOI v. Jain Shudh Vanaspati Ltd.; (iv) 1999 (113) E.L.T. 697 (Tribunal) = 1999 (34) RLT 211 (CEGAT) in the case of Motor Industries Co. Ltd. v. CCE, Bangalore; (v) 1999 (31) R.L.T. 429 (CEGAT) in the case of CCE, Mumbai v. Weld Flux Industries; (vi) 1999 (33) R.L.T. 32 (CEGAT) in the case of CCE, Bombay v. Khatan Makhanji Spg. Wearing Co. Ltd. and Another; (vii) 1996 (88) E.L.T. 307 (S.C.) = 1996 (17) RLT 697 (SC) in the case of Collector of Central Excise v. Maharashtra Scooters Ltd. 4.We have considered the above decisions relied upon by the learned Consultant. The ratio of all the decisions has been that in the absence of any show cause notice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
