TMI Blog2001 (1) TMI 358X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1994 a licence was issued to them for duty free import of certain inputs worth Rs. 22.5 lakhs with an obligation to export goods worth Rs. 62 Lakhs; that as they had also taken Modvat credit of the duty paid on the inputs, they had reversed a sum of Rs. 5,18,722/- on 24-12-1994, 15-6-1995 and 24-6-1995; that they had written a letter dated 19-6-1995 to the Supdt. of Central Excise in which they pointed out that the Modvat credit reversed by them was in excess of the Modvat credit involved in the goods imported and used in the manufacture of good exported; that they had given a sufficient indication that they had paid amount in excess of what was required to be paid by them; that they wrote another letter dated 21-8-1995 again pointing out t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... refund is admissible to them in terms of section 11B of Central Excise Act. He also referred to a Trade Notice No. 43/97-C.E., dated 31-3-1997 issued by CCE, Bolpur wherein it was mentioned that in cases where an exporter has made an excess reversal than the amount of Modvat wrongly availed (including interest) then he can apply for refund of the reversed amount. The ld. Advocate contended that it is evident from this Trade Notice that they are eligible for the refund of the amount of Modvat credit reversed by them in excess. He also mentioned that the Appellants, under their letter dated 31-1-1997, had indicated that the amount debited was made under protest; that the Supreme Court in the case of India Cement Ltd. v. CCE, 1989 (49) E.L.T. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efund of duty within the period of 6 months from the relevant date. According to Explanation (B) to Section 11B, relevant date in the present case is the date of payment of duty. It is not in dispute that the amount of Modvat credit was reversed on 24-12-1994, 15-6-1995 and 24-6-1995. No doubt the appellants, in their letter dated 19-6-1995 and 21-8-1995 had indicated that they had reversed more amount than required, they had no where even mentioned or given any communication that they are filing any refund claim. On the other hand mere mention of reversal of more amount in these letter will neither amount to protest nor it will amount to filing of refund claim under the provisions of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. This is apparent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
