TMI Blog2005 (3) TMI 690X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nufactures of Ayurvedic medicaments falling under Chapter 30 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 filed a refund claim for Rs. 12,79,479/- on the ground that the proportionate credit of duty reversal as per Rule 57C of Central Excise Rules, 1944, on the furnace oil and LSHS used as heating ingredients for the manufacture of non-dutiable medicaments during the period from 10/1999 to 2/2000 may be refunded to them. According to the assessee the credit of duty has been erroneously reversed by them under the mistaken view of law and refund may be allowed to them in view of CEGAT decision in the case of M/s. Raymond Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-III, reported in 2000 (117) E.L.T. 104 (Tribunal). This claim was rejected by adjudica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... taking credit when it is used in the manufacture of exempted final products or he can reverse the credit of duty equal to the amount of duty on such inputs attributed to have been used in or in relation to the manufacture of exempted final products. The Commissioner should have followed the binding instructions contained in the above said letter. 4.We have heard both sides. 5.The learned DR submitted that the Respondents reversed the credit taken after the receipt of the order of the Assistant Commissioner, Kozhikode Division Order No. 26/98, dated 11-9-1998, even though the credit involved did not pertain to the period under adjudication. The Respondents reversed the credit taken even for the subsequent period as the issue of eligibili ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6.The learned Advocate for the Respondents relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of (a) Collector of Central Excise, Bhubaneswar v. Orient Paper Mills [1994 (73) E.L.T. 648 (Tribunal)], (b) Commissioner of Central Excise, Kanpur v. Kanpur Plastipack Ltd. [2001 (127) E.L.T. 826 (Tri.-Del.)] and; (c) STI Sanoh India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore [2001 (127) E.L.T. 572 (Tri.-Del.)] wherein it was held repeatedly that bar of unjust enrichment is not applicable when refund/re-credit of Modvat credit is involved. He argued that in the case of Kanpur Plastipack Ltd. cited supra, the Tribunal held that proviso (c) to sub-section (2) of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act makes an exception in respect of cases involvi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
