9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (1) TMI 107X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... acturer of the final product has not taken any credit or has taken credit on any inputs and subsequently it so happens that any additional amount of duty is recovered by the manufacturer of such inputs or importer of such inputs in respect of such inputs, then manufacturer of the final product shall be allowed an additional amount equal to the amount of duty so recovered, if the manufacturer or importer of such inputs has passed on the incidence of the additional amount of duty to the manufacturer of final products." Thus we find that there is no provision for refund of duty in cash under sub-rule (2) of Rule 57E. This fact is further supported by the subsequent sub-rules (4) and (5). Against the above findings of the Tribunal the applica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is credit is utilised for payment of duty on Horlicks cleared at Bangalore packing station. 3. Initially the assessment of clearances at Rajamundry factory was done on a provisional basis. These assessments were subsequently finalised. Consequent to which Rajamundry factory paid excise duty of Rs. 18,34,599/-. The Supdt. of Central Excise issued a certificate under Rule 57E of the Central Excise Rules to this effect. The packing station at Bangalore was closed down as a result of which the packing materials in stock and machinery etc. were shifted to the packing station at Madras. Packing station at Bangalore took Modvat credit of differential duty amounting to Rs. 18,34,599/- on the strength of the certificate issued by the jurisdi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... paid. The Tribunal on the first issue held that provisions of the amended Rule 57F(7) will not be applicable to the facts of the present case. This decision of the Tribunal was not agitated by the Counsel for the appellants at the rehearing stage. On the second issue the Tribunal inadvertently held as indicated while discussing the ROM application decided by the Miscellaneous Order stated above. 5. Learned Counsel, therefore, submitted that since the question of refunding the amount in cash was permitted by Rule 57E(2), as it then was, the appeal may be allowed. Learned DR submitted that their's was a case under Rule 57F and not under Rule 57E. 6. Having considered the arguments of both sides we note that in view of the clea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
