TMI Blog1988 (12) TMI 209X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under Rule 56A for Ortho Dyhydro Chloride for manufacture of S.O.Dyes. This permission which was granted on 25-8-1976 was being availed of since then. In the year 1981 they have imported the consignment of Dianisidine Base (Blue B Base) classified under the erstwhile T.I 14D for the purpose of countervailing duty. When they received the consignment under B/E dated 12-12-1981 they noticed that the inputs had suffered countervailing duty under C.E.T. 14D and hence they submitted D-3 application straightaway. Acting on the basis of D-3 application the consignment, was also verified on the following day and credit was recorded after due verification by the officer. Only subsequently, they came to know that the requisite permission under Rule 5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ey would have applied for the requisite permission in advance. They also could have sent that application on the same date when they filed the D-3 application, which however, was not done due to oversight. His plea is that there was no mala fide or wilful omission; but for this all the substantive provisions envisaged under Rule 56A have been complied with. They have filed the D-3 application, they have presented the original duty payment documents, the goods had been verified, requisite records have been maintained and duly attested by the officers, particulars of credit taken and availed of had also been given in the monthly RT-12 returns. Legally also the inputs in question are undisputedly entitled for proforma credit. Shri Koruthu, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elay is not condoned the automatic consequence is to demand back the credit wrongly availed of. He also contended that in this case, credit has been taken without filing the application and there is no provision in the Rule to take such credit and avail of the same without filing the application. When the competent authority has not condoned the delay because it is not within the framework of the rules the amount of wrong credit taken has to be demanded from the party and this has been done by the Collector. 4. I have heard the arguments on both the sides and also perused the available records. In this case, admittedly the substantive provisions of Rule 56A have been complied with; viz. filing the D-3 application, presenting the original ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the case. it does not come under the purview of sub-rule 2B and accordingly rejected it. According to him, this is not a case of delay in the receipt of notification nor change in the assessment of input from one Tariff Item to another. To this extent, there can be no dispute with regard to the maintainability of his order. However this is admittedly, a wrong credit or incorrect credit. The Collector s order itself says that this is an amount of proforma credit incorrectly availed of by them. It is not the case of the department that this incorrect availment was not within the knowledge of department, since all the correspondence including the RT-12 returns clearly indicate that the department was posted with the information from time t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
