9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (10) TMI 121X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... when cleared for home consumption or for export under Bond. From the said date, under the Compounded Levy Scheme introduced under Scheme 3A of the Central Excise Act, they were not in a position to utilize the deemed Modvat credits accumulated in their account, towards payment of duty of excise on any final product cleared for home consumption or for export under Bond. Under sub-rule (13) of Rule 57F of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944, they were entitled to cash refund of the amount equivalent to such unutilized credit, subject to such safeguards, conditions and limitations as might be specified by the Central Government by Notification in the Official Gazette. Notification No. 85/87-C.E., dated 1-3-1987, which had been issued und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r with the proof of due exportation and the relevant extracts of Form RG-23A in original are lodged with the Assistant Collector of Central Excise before the expiry of the period specified in Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (1 of 1944). 8. The refund of excise duty shall be allowed by the said Assistant Collector of Central Excise." 2.The appellants had in their account unutilized deemed Modvat credits totalling to Rs. 5,98,236/- as on 16-12-98, for which they filed a refund claim on 17-5-99. This claim was rejected by the jurisdictional Dy. Commissioner of Central Excise on numerous grounds including (a) that the claim was presented in wrong Form (Form-R instead of Form-A) and under wrong provision of law [Rule 173S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s as alleged in the show cause notice. If so calculated, no part of the refund claim would be time-barred. Ld. Counsel contended that it was not correct to deny the substantive benefit of refund of the amount of unutilized credit to the appellants on procedural grounds like non-production of original documents, claim having been filed in wrong proforma, etc. In this connection, he relied on the following decisions :- (i) Hotline Teletube & Components Ltd. v. C.C.E., Indore [1998 (102) E.L.T. 33 (Tribunal)] (ii) Amrutanjan Ltd. v. C.C.E., Chennai [2001 (128) E.L.T. 244 (Tribunal - Chennai)]. (iii) Wonderseal Packing v. C.C.E., Nagpur [2002 (147) E.L.T. 626 (Tribunal - Delhi)]. 5.Ld. SDR defended the impugned order by submitting that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsidered the submissions. Ld. Counsel has endeavoured to take this case out of the purview of Notification No. 85/87-C.E. and put it in the realm of ordinary refund claims. We are unable to accept this. The above notification was issued under the 1st proviso to sub-rule (3) of Rule 57F, which provision later on came to be embodied in sub-rule (13) of the Rule. During the relevant period to which the refund claim relates sub-rule (13) of Rule 57F was in force and the above notification operated under this provision. Going by the text of sub-rule (13) of Rule 57F as also the notification, we find that Condition No. 7 contained in the Appendix to the notification was mandatory and accordingly, it was incumbent on the claimant to furnish proof ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
