9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (3) TMI 169X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der the relevant Customs Notification. They had been taking Modvat credit of the duty paid on inputs, used in the manufacture. 2. In and around December, 1996 and January, 1997, the Department entertained the view that under VBAL, the exporter should not at all have taken the input credit on any of the inputs used in the export product. The Department of Revenue issued a Public Notice on 3-1-97 notifying an 'amnesty scheme' under which the exporters operating under VBAL were given an opportunity to reverse the Modvat credit availed by them on the inputs used in exported products along with interest at 20% on or before 31-1-97. To avail the benefit of the 'amnesty scheme', they reversed the Modvat credit along with interest not only agains ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aken. On appeal the Commissioner (Appeals), Hyderabad, has upheld the order of the Deputy Commissioner. Hence this appeal. 7. We have heard both sides and find :- (a) It is not in dispute that the Appellants had reversed credit in excess of what was required under the 'amnesty scheme'. It is also a fact that the Appellants did inform the Assistant Commissioner before taking the credit of the excess amounts originally reversal. The Appellants have therefore only, restored the credit of duty available to them in accordance with the law. They have made arithmetical and accounting corrections required for the maintenance of RG 23A book, as mandated by Rule 226. (b) Section 11B, as urged by the DR before us, has no application to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ence of the Proper Officer. It is on record that the calculations as made have been accepted by the Assistant Commissioner vide letter dtd. 26-3-97 and thereafter it was imperative on part of the Appellants to correct the Account credit/debit entries. They have sought the refund vide letter dtd. 20-3-97. They should have been advised to correct the entry instead of taking up the issue by show cause notice etc. as in this case. A penalty at the most under Rule 226 could be imposed, for having made a cross reverse entry in contravention of Rule 226(ii). No penalty has however been arrived at or imposed by the lower authorities. 8. The order of reversal of credit as arrived at by the lower authorities considering it as a refund is therefore ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
