2015 (6) TMI 191

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... September, 1989. on 29.12.1989. The said refund claim was rejected by the Asstt. Collector on 09.01.1992 on the premise that the appellant has not taken any credit in RG23 A Part II of the input received and in the absence of any credit being taken, there no balance in RG23 A Part II available for refund claim, therefore, the refund cannot be sanctioned. The said order was challenged before the Collector (Appeals), who vide order dated 31.08.1992 remanded matter back to re-examine the matter in the light of the order passed by this Tribunal in appellant's own case vide order No. A/280-281/92 NRB dated 23.06.1992. In remand proceedings, on 21.01.1994, the Assistant Collector again rejected the refund claim on the ground that in respect ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....jected the refund claim, same was appeal against before the Ld. Commissioner (A) who on 25.02.2005 remanded matter back to the Asstt. Commissioner but again on 23.01.2006 rejected the refund claim on appeal the Ld. Commissioner (Appeal) on 17.07.2006 again remanded matter back to the adjudicating authority. Thereafter, on 12.02.2007 the Asstt. Commissioner again rejected the refund claim on premise that since the credit on input/raw material used by the appellant is not admissible the refund claim thereof cannot be granted, as it is only the said MODVAT credit which, if remains unutilized can be claimed as refund in terms of Rule 57 F (3) ibid. The said order was challenged before the Ld. Commissioner and vide order dated 17.10.2010 the Ld.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... is also admitted position that M/s. UK Paint had not claimed any drawback as was certified by Customs Authorities under letter dated 01.10.1992. However, the fact to be ascertained as to whether export of the goods effected through U.K.Paint has been made under DEEC Scheme. The Revenue is claiming that in such circumstances MODVAT Credit cannot be availed of. This aspect of the matter, has not been considered appropriately. We are, therefore, constrained to remand the matter to the Adjudicating Authority to decide the matter afresh on this aspect alone after a reasonable opportunity to the appellants. As the matter is pending since long, it will be appreciated if the matter is re-adjudicated at the earliest possible. 6. As the order dat....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Customs duty. Thus, the benefit to the merchant-exporter was relatable only to Customs duty and not the Central Excise duty paid on inputs. Therefore, there is no merit in the contention of the Revenue that the impugned order has conferred double benefit on the appellant. 8. I further find that in the case of Oswal Agro Mills Ltd. (Supra) the facts of the case are as under: "The facts of the case are that the respondents herein are engaged in manufacture of soaps. They were availing also the credit of duty paid on inputs in the modvat scheme. The Deptt. Alleged that inputs obtained indigenously and in the manufacturer of soaps exported under Bond under the DEEC Scheme were entitled to modvat credit in as much as export under DEEC/und....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the credit taken. On scrutiny of this Rule we find that Rule 57 F (3) (a) provides that the final product for which modvat credit of futy has been claimed on the inputs can be exported under Bond. In the instant case, the goods were exported goods permits taking of modvat or not is a phenomenon subsequent to the export of the goods in question. In the instant case, we are concerned with the export of the goods which is the phenomenon precedent to the import of replenishment material and therefore, the relevant provisions applicable to the replenishment of the material cannot be imported into the Modvat Rules. The two situation are different. We therefore, agree with the findings of the Ld. Collector (Appeals) holding that modvat credit of i....