TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (12) TMI 427
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t stage credit was availed under Rule 56A or Rule 57A of Central Excise Rules, 1944. The appellant had availed the input stage Modvat Credit of goods exported towards fulfillment of export obligation under the said licence in violation of condition V(a) of the said Notification and also Para 12 of the Handbook of Procedure of EXIM Policy 1992-97. Further, the appellant subsequently reversed the Modvat Credit of Rs. 9,34,076/- on inputs used in the manufacture of goods exported towards fulfillment of the export obligation against the above licenses. Out of this amount, an amount of Rs. 4,42,665/- was reversed against the inputs used in the manufacture of exported goods against the fulfillment of obligation under VBAL No. P/L/2050994 dt. 01.06.1993. In terms of the Amnesty Scheme declared vide Min. of Fin. Circular No. 285/1/97-CX dt. 10.01.1997, in order to escape duty liability and penal provisions, the party should have reversed the Modvat Credit and also paid the interest on or before 31.01.1997. But, the party deposited the amount of interest of Rs. 51,260/- vide TR-6 Challan No. 01 dt. 07.02.1997 i.e. after the deadline specified in the circular No. 285/1/97-CX dt. 10.01.1997. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....refund of interest thereon. He admitted that they have not mentioned any provision in the said letter for restoration of the credit. He also stated that for determination of refund, the period when the matter was pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court should be excluded. In this regard, he relied upon the following case laws:- (1). M.P. Steel Corporation Vs. CCE - 2015 (319) ELT 373(SC). (2). Union of India Vs. West Coast Paper Mills Ltd. and Anr. - 2004 (166) ELT 290 (SC). (3) Sonia Overseas Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India - 2015 (316) ELT 578 (P & H). (4). Vijay Brothers and Others Vs. Union of India - 1989 (40) ELT 51 (P & H). 6. The Ld. AR stated that the request for restoration/refund has been made after 8 years and such a request is not only time barred but there is no provision for restoration of the Cenvat Credit as has been rightly pointed out by the ld Commissioner (Appeals). He further contended that the letter of the Department referred to by the appellant was purely an advisory as the Amnesty scheme had been introduced. He invited attention to the show cause notice wherein it was brought to the notice of the party that they had not....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o bar in the notification to prevent them from applying for refund claim/restoration. If they had opted for the notification and were pursuing their case in that direction, they could not turn back after 8 years to claim the refund/restoration of the Cenvat Credit on the ground of limitation as there was no bar in the said notification that they could not apply for the refund. As they had opted for a particular course, we find that the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has taken the correct view in rejecting their refund request on the ground of limitation. As rightly pointed out by Ld. Commissioner (Appeals), the Apex Court while denying the benefit of notification 203/92-Cus dt. 19.05.2002 is completely silent regarding restoration of Cenvat credit earlier reversed by the party. 10. The appellants plea that the Tribunal should devise formulation to grant them refund is not tenable as they did not carry out their legal responsibility to file the refund claim within time. It is settled position of law that in the case of refunds the Limitation Act does not apply to the Central Excise proceedings as Central Excise Act is a self-contained enactment. 11. The appellant has also pleaded ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of 1997 and batch, dt. 02.02.1998 is not correct. In view of the same, we hold the substantial questions raised in the appeal in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. This Tribunal in the case of Century Rayon Vs. CCE Mumbai-II (supra) also held that restoration of credit reversed earlier is not possible. The relevant findings of Tribunal are reproduced below:- 4. As regards reversal of Modvat credit of Rs. 6,32,291/- on 01.05.1992 and 20.04.1993, there being no provision for restoration of Modvat credit in Central Excise Act, 1944, appellants were required to follow the procedure as prescribed under Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944, by filing a refund claim, which they have not filed, hence the Modvat credit of Rs. 6,32,291/- reversed by them is hit by the limitation of time bar. Finally, as the lower authority has not recorded any grounds of having contravened the provisions of Modvat rules, and had allowed the Modvat credit on merits, imposition of a penalty of Rs. 5,000/- under Rule 173Q was legally proper, correct and sustainable. 13. In view of the above, there is no merit in the appeal of the appellant and the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner (....