TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2002 (2) TMI 790
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....stant Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore-II Division, Coimbatore. The Assistant Commissioner had rejected the refund claim of the appellants for an amount of Rs. 12,75,201/- as unsubstantiated. Aggrieved by the said order, the Assessee preferred appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) against the order of the Assistant Commissioner and the Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal. 2. Briefly stated, the facts are that the appellants are manufacturers of submersible pumps and valves. During the period from 10-3-94 to 9-4-94, submersible pumps were exempted from Central Excise duty. However, parts of submersible pumps used captively for the manufacture of such pumps were liable to suffer duty till such time they were exempt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ellant submitted their claim for Modvat credit under Rule 57-H in regard to the duty paid on the inputs and in the meantime they discharged duty through PLA for the period 10-3-94 to 9-4-94. Subsequently when the credit was eventually made available, they could not make use of the same as the final product had by now been exempt from duty. They therefore filed a refund and claim for Rs. 12,75,201/-. The Assistant Commissioner rejected the same for the reason that there was no provision under the Central Excise law for granting such refund. 4. The appellants have argued in the grounds of appeal that the permission for availing credit of duty on the inputs lying in stock, at the time of filing the declaration, on 8-3-94 was eventually....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er filing the declaration etc. since no formal permission of Assistant Commissioner was required vide decision in Formac Industries Reported in 1991 (37) ECR 95 (T). Therefore, they need not have waited for the permission of the Assistant Commissioner. The case law cited viz. decision of the Tribunal in the case of DCM Data Products deals with transfer of unutilised proforma credit, and rejection of the claim as time-barred, which is not the case here. I am therefore of the opinion that the Assistant Commissioner's order is maintainable in law and needs no interference from me. 4. It is against the above order of the Commissioner (Appeals) that the appellants have come in appeal on the following grounds : 1. The Asstt. Commi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat Rule 57H credit was allowed on 20-4-94. That being the case, there was no possibility of the appellants being in a position to use the said credit (Rule 57H) for clearance of the dutiable final products before the said date. The Commissioner (A) had failed to appreciate Rule 57H of CER, 1944 contemplated permission of the Asstt. Commissioner to avail such credit. The language in Rule 57-H of CER, 1944 very clearly states that "................the Asstt. Commissioner may allow credit of the duty paid on the inputs received by a manufacturer immediately before obtaining the dated acknowledgement of the declaration made under the said rule (Rule 57G) if he is satisfied that ..............." 7. This would only mean that the Asstt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... incorrect conclusion that the said decision is not in favour of the appellants. It is submitted, the said decision as a matter of fact would help the appellants cause. 11. The appellants are separately furnishing particulars relating to duty payment in RG-23A part-II & PLA during the relevant period and would show the minimum credit which they would have utilised during the said period if they had been permitted Rule 57H credit in time by the Asstt. Commissioner. This information may be appreciated by the Honourable CEGAT in deciding the appeal. 5. Heard Shri R. Raghavan, learned Counsel for the appellants. He reiterated the grounds of appeal and submitted that the orders passed by the authorities below are not sustainable.....