TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2003 (10) TMI 121
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....when cleared for home consumption or for export under Bond. From the said date, under the Compounded Levy Scheme introduced under Scheme 3A of the Central Excise Act, they were not in a position to utilize the deemed Modvat credits accumulated in their account, towards payment of duty of excise on any final product cleared for home consumption or for export under Bond. Under sub-rule (13) of Rule 57F of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944, they were entitled to cash refund of the amount equivalent to such unutilized credit, subject to such safeguards, conditions and limitations as might be specified by the Central Government by Notification in the Official Gazette. Notification No. 85/87-C.E., dated 1-3-1987, which had been issued unde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nbsp; The refund shall be allowed only in those circumstances where a manufacturer is not in a position to utilize the credit of the duty allowed under Rule 57A against goods exported during the quarter to which the claim relates. 7. The application for refund together with the proof of due exportation and the relevant extracts of Form RG-23A in original are lodged with the Assistant Collector of Central Excise before the expiry of the period specified in Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (1 of 1944). 8. The refund of excise duty shall be allowed by the said Assistant Collector of Central Excise." 2.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d notification but a claim of unutilized credit in accordance with Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. For this very reason, the claim filed in 'Form R' was in order. On the time-bar issue, ld. Counsel submitted that the period of six months prescribed as limitation under Section 11B should, in this case, have been calculated from 16-12-98 and not from the date of exportation of the goods as alleged in the show cause notice. If so calculated, no part of the refund claim would be time-barred. Ld. Counsel contended that it was not correct to deny the substantive benefit of refund of the amount of unutilized credit to the appellants on procedural grounds like non-production of original documents, claim having been filed in wrong proforma, e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....evant date for calculating the period of limitation was the date on which the exportation commenced. In this connection, he referred to the Supreme Court's decision in C.C.E., Chandigarh v. Doaba Cooperative Sugar Mills [1998 (37) E.L.T. 478 (S.C.)]. In his rejoinder, ld. Counsel submitted that the relevant date was the date on which the appellants came to know that they were not able to utilize the deemed credit, which was the date on which they came to be covered under the Compounded Levy Scheme. 6.We have carefully considered the submissions. Ld. Counsel has endeavoured to take this case out of the purview of Notification No. 85/87-C.E. and put it in the realm of ordinary refund claims. We are unable to accept this. The above notif....