9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (12) TMI 127X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or export. b) They became eligible for deemed credit in terms of Notification No.29/96 (NT), dt.3.9.96. The compounded levy scheme was introduced w.e.f. 16.12.98. As a result, they had accumulated deemed credit totaling Rs.1.68 crores which could not be utilized during the period from 16.12.98 in view of the changed excise procedure. c) From 1.3.01, the compounded levy scheme was withdrawn and the processed fabrics were subjected to ad-valorem basis extending the benefit of actual credit of duty paid on unprocessed fabrics. d) The appellant sought permission to avail the accumulated credit for the clearances of processed fabrics made by them on payment of duty during this period. This was denied to them by the jurisdict ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e in respect of deemed credit. Though the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order dt.13.3.03 is in their favour, they were not able to utilize the credit as no duty was payable on the fabrics from 1.3.03. Therefore, he submits that they should be allowed the refund. 4.2 He also submits that they are not in a position to produce documents like shipping bills, AR-4, export invoices as the exports have taken place during the period 1996 to 1998. The Department has not replied to the correspondence for confirmation of certain facts which will prove that they have not claimed any drawback or rebate. The appellant submitted the evidences like Chartered Accountant's certificate, balance sheet, director's affidavit and t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rebate as well as drawback claim in respect of a manufacturing unit. 4.5 He also relies upon the decision of the Tribunal in case of Balkrishna Textile Mills Vs. CCE Ahmedabad vide Order No.M/154/WZB/Ah'bad/06 dt.21.11.06 in Appeal No.2710/2000 and also the judgement in the case of Gauri Plasticulture (P) Ltd. Vs. CCE Indore - 2006 (202) ELT 199 (Tri-Mumbai), in the case of Kundalia Industries Vs. CCE, Delhi-I - 2006 (196) ELT 312 (Tri-Del.), in the case of STL Products (P) Ltd. Vs. CCE, Bangalore - 2006 (198) ELT 521 (Tri-Bang.), in the case of CCE, Rajkot Vs. Deepak Vegetable Oils Inds. - 2001 (127) E.L.T.817 (Tri-Mum.), in the case of CCE Ahmedabad Vs. Omkar Textiles.[2002(148) E.L.T. 461 (Tri.-Mumbai) 5. The learned SDR submits that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eal has been filed against the said order. Therefore, the order has to be given effect to. The only method by which the effect can be given is by way of cash refund. The appellant claims to have produced documents like Chartered Accountant's certificate, balance sheet, Director's affidavit to substantiate that they have not claimed drawback. It is possible that the documents submitted may have break-up of export, domestic clearances. It is claimed that these documents may provide circumstantial evidences in support of the claim of the appellant. The other evidences, if any, available to support the claim of the appellant has not been highlighted. The appellant also has not taken care to highlight the impl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
