Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether refund of duty paid on electrical stampings and laminations could be denied on the ground that the manufacturer had not first reversed the Modvat credit.
Analysis: The dispute concerning eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 64/86-C.E. had already been resolved in favour of the assessee. Once that position was accepted, duty paid on the goods became refundable. The liability to reverse Modvat credit, if any, was only a consequential matter and could be pursued by the excise authorities against the manufacturer after grant of refund. Refund could not be withheld on the premise that credit had not yet been reversed, because the goods continued to be duty paid until refund was actually sanctioned. Support was also drawn from Rule 57E, which contemplates adjustment of credit where refund of duty arises subsequently.
Conclusion: The refund claim was admissible and could not be rejected merely because the manufacturer had not reversed the Modvat credit first.
Final Conclusion: The assessee's refund claim succeeded, while the authorities were left at liberty to seek reversal or adjustment of credit from the manufacturer after refund was granted.
Ratio Decidendi: A refund of duty consequent upon an exemption finding cannot be denied merely because Modvat credit taken by the manufacturer on inputs has not yet been reversed; reversal or adjustment of credit is consequential to the grant of refund, not a precondition for it.