Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1998 (5) TMI 72

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... that the appellants herein are inter alia engaged in the manufacture of black and white picture tubes falling under Chapter 85 of the Schedule to the CETA, 1985 and they availed of Modvat credit of duty paid on inputs used in the manufacture of picture tubes, part of which they cleared for home consumption on payment of duty, utilising the credit paid on the inputs in accordance with the provisions of Rule 57F. They also cleared black and white picture tubes for export under bond without payment of duty. They duty paid on the inputs used in the manufacture of the final product cleared for export under bond without payment of duty got accumulated in their RG 23A Part II account. In terms of the proviso to Rule 57F(4), the credit of duty in r .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... stant Commissioner rejected it for the reason that the appellants had filed two refund claims, albeit for different quarters, in the same quarter i.e. quarter ending September, 1995, thereby violating clause 2 of the Appendix to Notification 85/87-C.E. The appellants filed another refund claim for an amount of Rs. 41,57,265/- on 1-12-1995 for the duty paid on inputs used in the manufacture of the picture tubes exported in June, 1995 in order to overcome the objection of the Department that two refund claims, even though pertaining to two different quarters, cannot be filed in the same quarter. This refund claim was also rejected by the Assistant Commissioner s order dated 7-12-1995 on the ground that the refund claim relating to exports mad .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e quarter ending June in the quarter July to September or subsequent quarter. The export of the goods are not in dispute. The goods have in fact been exported. It is also not in dispute that the appellant was not in a position to utilise the credit during the quarter to which the claim relates. The appellant, in this case have also complied with the filing of claims before the expiry of the period i.e. 6 months specified in sub-section (sic) 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The requirement of filing the claims once in a quarter appears to be to ensure proper verification of the Condition No. 5 i.e. the refund shall be allowed only in those circumstances where a manufacturer is not in a position to utilise the credit of the dut .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... unable to agree with this contention. Clause 2 of Appendix to the Notification 85/87 stipulates that the claim for refund of credit allowed on inputs used in goods exported under bond should be submitted not more than once in any quarter in a calendar year. This clearly means that only one refund claim can be filed in a particular quarter in a calendar year. We would have been able to appreciate the appellants contention if the expression used in clause 2 read not more than once for any quarter . However, we agree with the appellants plea that the condition prescribed in clause 2 is a procedural requirement, the non-fulfilment of which cannot result in denial of the substantive benefit of refund which is conferred under Rule 57F(4) of th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Motors v. CCE, Calcutta reported in 1996 (87) E.L.T. 216, the Tribunal has held that the condition in clause 2 of the Appendix to Notification 85/87-C.E. that the refund claims are to be submitted not more than once in any quarter in a calendar year may prevent a manufacturer from filing a refund claim within the statutory limit permissible; if for any reason he is unable to file his claim in the particular quarter when it is due to be filed and in the next quarter or the subsequent quarter when time limit under Section 11B of the Central Excises Act, 1944 may be available, he will not be able to file it within six months, if in that next or subsequent quarter, he has filed other refund claims, and such a condition is not in order. We are, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates