TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (12) TMI 737
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al has been preferred by the second respondent against the above said order? ii. Whether the first respondent is correct in not appreciating the fact that in the Form EA.3 filed before the Appellate Tribunal, the period of dispute was indicated as 1987 onwards and the Appellate Tribunal had allowed the appeal vide Order No.1945/1996 dated 18.10.96? iii. Whether the third respondent is correct in not holding that later larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of Union Carbide India Ltd Vs CCE 1996 (86) ELT 613 (T) and Order No.1945/1996 dated 18.10.96 would impliedly overrule the earlier Order No.643/1991 dated 22-11-91 of the Tribunal and therefore the appellate would be entitled for the benefit of MODVAT credit from 1987 onwards? iv. Whether the first respondent is correct in denying the credit on procedural grounds when the Honble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Formica India Division 1995 (77) ELT 511 (SC) has held that the benefit of Notification No.71/71-C.E. cannot be denied on technical ground of non-compliance with Rule 56A procedure?" 2. At the outset, learned Senior Counsel Smt. M.Bhaskara Lakshmi, at the time of hearing, would submit that Question No.iv....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Assistant Commissioner rejected the benefit of MODVAT credit by referring to the Final Order of the CEGAT, dated 22.11.1991. The appellant challenged the same by way of an appeal, which appeal also came to be rejected and finally the matter came up before the CEGAT, Bangalore. The said Appeal was numbered as Appeal No.F/523/96 and E/472/99/MAS. The said appeal came to be allowed by orders dated 18.10.1996 in Order No.1945 of 1996, following the Larger Bench decision in the case of Union Carbide India Ltd., case (supra). On appeal being allowed, the appellant also filed a Rectification of Mistake Application bearing No.E/ROM/817/97 before the CEGAT to recall and rectify its order dated 22.11.1991 in Appeal No.643 of 1991. The said application was dismissed on 17.03.1997. The reference application seeking to question the order dated 17.03.1997 also came to be dismissed by this Court. In February, 1997, the appellant availed input credit on felts and wires for the period from 29.07.1987 to 09.07.1992. In the process of scrutinizing RT-12 returns, the Assistant Commissioner noticing of this issued a show cause notice on 04.09.1997 under Rule 57-I of the Rules seeking explanation wh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rred in dismissing the appeal of the appellant. 5. On the other hand, Sri Swaroop, learned counsel representing on behalf Sri Gopala Krishna Gokhale, learned Standing Counsel for the Department, supports the order of the Tribunal and places reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in M/s. Radhasoami Satsang, Saomi Bagh, Agra vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (1992) 1 SCC 659. 6. We have considered the rival submissions of both the learned counsel and perused the record. 7. A close perusal of the orders of the Tribunal indicate that the Tribunal had taken into consideration the declaration dated 07.07.1992 made by the appellant, wherein the appellant itself had stated that it may be allowed to avail MODVAT credit on felts and wires in view of the decision of Straw Products Ltd., case (supra). It is also stated therein that it would file a refund claim against the duty paid from 01.03.1987 till the date of acknowledgments and also duty on stocks held as on 28.02.1987 against the above two inputs separately. The said declaration is filed under Rule 57G of the Rules. Rule 57G of the Rules deals only with regard to taking of credit by the method of giving acknowledgments. The same ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....put credit came to be challenged by the appellants by resorting to the provisions under the Act and Rules and the denial order came to be affirmed by the Tribunal, which denial became final. The order of the Tribunal, intra parties is binding and there cannot be any two opinions about the same decision. Further the effort made by the appellant seeking rectification of the order of the Tribunal on 22.11.1991 also came to be rejected and in fact the reference which is sought from the said Rectification of Mistake (ROM) order also came to be rejected. In other words, whatever may be the legal position for other manufacturers, so far as the appellant is concerned the decision intra parties is binding and there is no escape from the same. In this context nine judge judgment of the Supreme Court in Mafatlal Industries Ltd., Vs. Union of India (1997) 5 SCC 536 is apt and may be noticed. Para 79: One of the important principles of law, based upon public policy, is the sanctity attaching to the finality of any proceeding, be it a suit or any other proceeding. Where a duty has been collected under a particular order which has become final, the refund of that duty cannot be claimed unless t....