TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (4) TMI 324
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e 57 A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Out of these 31 inputs, except 2 inputs others are common for all types of picture tubes. Two inputs, namely, electron gun and gas shell are specific to the size of the picture tube. The appellants maintained consolidated RG-23 A, Part-II Accounts for all the screen sizes. They utilized the credit earned on inputs which are used in the manufacture of picture tubes of size 14 inch or less towards payment of duty on clearance of picture tubes of 17 inches and 20 inches. The Department entertained a view that such credit availed on inputs for picture tube size of 14 inch or less cannot be utilized for payment of duty on the picture tubes of 17 inch and 20 inch size. Accordingly, proceedings were initiated to recover such wrong utilization of credits during the period 01.03.1994 to 15.03.1995. Four show cause notices were issued for a total amount of Rs. 4,19,33,605. When the matter was pending adjudication the appellants on their own calculated the amount covered towards the allegation made by the Revenue and paid an amount of Rs. 2,27,20,000/- through their PLA, in two installments of Rs. 1.00 Crore on 03.08.1995 and Rs. 1,27,20,000/- on 07.0....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ity examined the claim and rejected the same. 7. On appeal vide the impugned order the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the Original Order and rejected the appeal. Aggrieved by this order the appellant filed the present appeal. 8. Meanwhile the Revenue filed a reference petition No.6/2002 before the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan challenging the Tribunals order dated 19.04.2002. The Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 17.02.2003 directed the Tribunal to submit the statement of facts in regard to two questions framed for decision by the High Court. The present appeal was listed for hearing on various occasions from 2009 onwards. The Revenue submitted that the connected matter on merit was pending in reference petition with the Honble High Court. It is relevant to note the proceedings at the time of hearing of this appeal on various dates in this Tribunal. On 13.10.2010 the matter was heard for a considerable time and the Departmental Representative requested for adjournment to seek further instructions. The Tribunal directed the respondent to file an affidavit of a responsible officer giving details about the credit which was availed by the appellants during the period from 01.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion will be treated as dismissed for non-prosecution. It is seen that the Revenue failed to file the paper-book and their reference petition was dismissed on 05.02.2009. 11. From the above narration, it is apparent that the status of the reference petition which was dismissed on 05.02.2009 was not correctly informed to the Tribunal on various occasions when this appeal was posted for hearing. On 03.09.2015 when this appeal was posted for hearing ld. A.R. submitted a letter dated 29.08.2013 written by Additional Commissioner to state that they are making efforts to file an application for restoration of their reference petition dismissed for non-prosecution. It was further informed on 28.10.2015 that the application for the restoration of reference petition has been filed and pending decisions in the Honble High Court. After going through the appeal records and the fact of submission of incorrect information by the Revenue repeatedly, the Tribunal observed that it is not proper to grant any more adjournment in the appeal. However, as a last chance the Revenue was directed to file an affidavit before the next date of hearing stating the status of the reference petition and also st....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... as first appellate authority on the ground that the amount of Rs. 227.20 Lakhs taken as a re-credit in August, 1995 has been utilized by them for payment of duty and there was no amount available as on 31.12.1995 on this account. In other words, it was concluded by the lower authorities that credit of amount of Rs. 492.28 Lakhs which lapsed on 01.03.1997 in terms of newly introduced Rule 57 F (17) did not include the impugned amount of Rs. 227.20 Lakhs. During the course of argument, the ld. Consultant for the appellant strongly contested the correctness of the assertion made by the Jurisdictional Commissioner that the appellant admitted that the balance of credit has become nil as on 31.12.1995. It was submitted that he appellants maintained 2 registers of RG 23 A Part II (Register I and 2) the details of these registers during the material period are as below:- Register No.1 Register No.2 Total Opening balance as on August 1, 1995 157.69 Lacs Opening Balance as on August 1, 1995 624.63 Lacs 782.32 Lacs Credit taken during August 1995 to December, 1995 235.42 Lacs Credit taken during April 1995 to February, 1997 3578.03 Lacs 38....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....given ample opportunity of many occasions to file an affidavit specifically stating the factual position in support of the claim regarding credit availed by the appellant, their utilization and balance available on the relevant dates. We note that no such affidavit could be filed by the Revenue and finally it has been submitted that the records could not be located because of change of jurisdiction and relocation of office etc. 21. As already noted the claim for refund in the present case arose consequent on a favourable finding by the Tribunal vide the final order dated 19.04.2002. The findings in the impugned order only focused on the credit balance in register-1 of RG 23 A part II without any reference to register No.2 which contained a balance of Rs. 492.28 Lakhs. The finding is that this amount which is to lapse on 01.03.1997 does not include the amount now claimed as refund. This apparently is contrary to the earlier findings of the original and appellate authority at the time of disallowing the credit as discussed above. We have also perused the details submitted by the appellant vide their letter dated 04.01.2002 to the Jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner. The appellants in....