TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1994 (5) TMI 92
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... had disposed of two appeals filed before him by M/s. Orient Paper and Industries Limited. It was held by Collector (Appeals) in the said Orders that even after the rescinding of Notification 201/79 with effect from 1-3-1986, their right to the benefit thereof during the period when the same was in force remained intact. He relied upon Tribunal's Order No. 87/1991-C, dated 29-1-1991 in a matter concerning the present respondents themselves and in another case relating to MRF Ltd. reported under 1990 (50) E.L.T. 482. As both the appeals involve identical questions and as they were argued together we are passing this combined order disposing of both the appeals. 2. Shri N.K. Mandal, learned Departmental&n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... due to the Department's refusal would lapse with the rescission of the Notification. Such rescission cannot affect past rights already acquired. Thus, it cannot be said that if Credit had been wrongly taken and availed, it could not be recovered later on only on the ground that the Notification had been rescinded. Just as the Government has such a right to recover wrongly utilised Credit even after the deletion of the relevant provision, the assessee also has the right to have the benefit of Credit, notwithstanding the rescinding of the Notification. Shri Bagaria also pointed out that when the Writ Petition filed by them before the Honourable Orissa high Court was decided, the Counsels of both the sides had given their respective consent. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....provisions of Para 9(b) of the Appendix to Notification No. 201/79; (iv) the benefit is not due to them as the relevant Notification had been rescinded with effect from 1-3-1986; (v) the Tribunal decisions relied upon by the Collector (Appeals) are not applicable as the facts therein were different; (vi) In any case no refund is due to them as they had passed on the duty burden to their customers. 5. The argument that they could have taken the Credit is not a valid one. When the Department has issued a show cause notice and the Superintendent had even disallowed the Credit in the RG-23 Part-II Account, they could not have taken the Credit. If they had taken the Credit in defiance of the notice and the Superintendent's direc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g thus been responsible for the respondents being frustrated in their efforts to utilise the Credit, it does not lie in the mouth of the authorities to say that since the Notification has been rescinded the respondents would not be eligible for the benefit thereof. The Tribunal decision in the respondents' own case which was relied upon by the Collector (Appeals) cannot be said to be not relevant to the present case on the ground that it dealt with a different Notification namely 225/86. Even if the notification was different the central point involved was the same. Credit accrued to them under the Notification could not be availed of by them due to Department's denial of permission. When the permission was actually granted the notification....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Excises and Salt Act, 1944 as correctly pointed out, carves out an exception in respect of cases involving Credit of duty. Thus the argument advanced in the appeals in the this regard fails. More importantly, this provision refers to payment of refund of duty to the applicant of Credit of duty paid on inputs in accordance with the rules or a notification. Thus refund of Credit of duty to the applicant is contemplated and is, in fact, permitted. The relevant provision (whether Rules or Notifications) may provide that no refund is payable but that provision has to be read harmoniously in conjunction with Section 11B(2) proviso (c). The provision regarding non-payment of refund of Credit has to be read down and confined to normal cases where ....