Commissioner of Customs and Vs. Rahul Dyeing and Printing Pvt.

Commissioner of Customs and vs Rahul Dyeing and Printing Pvt.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Nov 03, 2004

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/37003

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/37003
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Judge: A M Moheb
Decided On: Nov 03, 2004
Subject: Excise

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Excise

Key legal issue: Excise

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Commissioner of Customs and

Respondent

Rahul Dyeing and Printing Pvt.

Legal References

Reported In: (2005)(181)ELT40Tri(Mum.)bai

Excerpt

.....under bond, and which was not allowed to be utilised for payment of duty on final products cleared for home consumption because of instructions of the department, is admissible under rule 57f (13) of central excise rules 1944. he relied on the cbec circular no.408/41/98-cx dt. 20.7.98, while coming to this conclusion. the revenue's contention is that the above stated circular should be read with notification no. 85/87 ce(nt) dt. 1.3.97 as amended under which the conditions and limitations are to be satisfied as set out in the appendix to this notification which, inter-aiia, stipulates that; (a) the claims for such refund are submitted not more than once in any quarter in a calender year and that (b) the refund shall be allowed only in those circumstances where a manufacturer is not in a position to utilise the credit of the duty allowed under rule 57a against goods exported during the quarter or a month to which the claim relates.4. i have perused the impugned order and the order of the lower authority rejecting the refund claim. the facts in this case appear to be that the respondents applied for cancellation of his registration, which only means that he has no further use either for the credit accumulated under rule 57a or for the balance remaining in his pla. i do not see how he has not satisfied the provisions of the notification cited by the revenue. the order of the commissioner is legal and proper. the appeal of the revenue is rejected.

Full Judgment

1. This is a Revenue's appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner has set aside the order of the lower authority with a direction that the refund involved be sanctioned and paid to the appellant. The respondents filed a refund claim for Rs. 3,56,142/- and Rs. 508/- on 10.12.99 being the balance lying in the appellants RG 23A Part-II Register and Personal Ledger Account Register respectively. The application for refund has been filed in form GAR 46.

The accumulated credit lying in RG 23A Part-II can be refunded in case such accumulation has occurred owing to export of goods under bond and the assessee is not in position to utilise the same. The lower authority rejected the claim on the ground that the assessee did not substantiate how he could not have utilised the credit. He also observed that in this case even though the assessee wanted his registration certificate to be cancelled he has not submitted the same for cancellation.

2. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the refund of accumulated deemed modvat credit availed on inputs used in final products which were exported under bond, and which was not allowed to be utilised for payment of duty on final products cleared for home consumption because of instructions of the department, is admissible under Rule 57F (13) of Central Excise Rules 1944. He relied on the CBEC Circular No.408/41/98-CX dt. 20.7.98, while coming to this conclusion. The Revenue's contention is that the above stated circular should be read with notification No. 85/87 CE(NT) dt. 1.3.97 as amended under which the conditions and limitations are to be satisfied as set out in the Appendix to this notification which, inter-aiia, stipulates that; (a) The claims for such refund are submitted not more than once in any quarter in a Calender year and that (b) The refund shall be allowed only in those circumstances where a manufacturer is not in a position to utilise the credit of the duty allowed under Rule 57A against goods exported during the quarter or a month to which the claim relates.

4. I have perused the impugned order and the order of the lower authority rejecting the refund claim. The facts in this case appear to be that the respondents applied for cancellation of his registration, which only means that he has no further use either for the credit accumulated under Rule 57A or for the balance remaining in his PLA. I do not see how he has not satisfied the provisions of the Notification cited by the Revenue. The order of the Commissioner is legal and proper. The appeal of the Revenue is rejected.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties Commissioner of Customs and vs Rahul Dyeing and Printing Pvt. Same Subject Excise Same Judge A M Moheb