1998 (10) TMI 206

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r the Respondents. [Order per : P.C. Jain, Member (T)]. -  Briefly stated. Facts of the case are as follows :- Notification No. 225/86-C.E., dated 3-4-1986 provides, inter alia, for exemption from duty on final product namely Polyster Staple Fibre (PSF) equivalent to the duty paid on Mono Ethylene Glycol (MEG). In other words this was simpliciter a notification for set-off duty paid ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....al Excise Rules, 1944. Since there was no one-to-one correlationship, credit earned on MEG and utilised in PSF which was ulimately exported would have been utilised by the respondents towards duty payable on clearances of PSF for home consumption. But this was not to be. Learned Advocate Shri V.K. Agrawal for the respondents has brought to our notice a letter dated 15-2-1990 from the Inspector, Ce....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... final product, unlike the Modvat credit procedure (under Rule 57F of Central Excise Rules, 1944). Therefore granting of refund is not permissible. He however does not object to the fact that had the amount of duty paid on such inputs continued in the set-off register it could be and would have been utilised towards duty on clearances of PSF for home consumption, in view of the procedure laid down....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... dated 15-2-1990. Revenue cannot therefore contend that the refund has wrongly been given. After having wrongfully reversed credit in the set-off register, denying the refund to the respondents only on this technical point raised by the Revenue would amount to a wrong doer having an advantage of its wrong act. If the Revenue had not forced the respondents to reverse the credit in the set-off regis....