9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (12) TMI 160X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the rejection order dated 12th March, 1998, also challenged the validity of clause (3) of 2nd Proviso to Notification No.5/94 C.E. (NT) dated 1st March, 1994, issued in exercise of powers conferred by Rule 57-A of the Central Excise Rules. Having not granted substantive relief by learned single Judge, the present two appeals have been preferred. 3. As the case could be disposed of on a short point, it is not necessary to discuss all the facts, except the relevant ones, as discussed hereunder :- The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of coated fabrics falling under heading 59.03 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The essential raw material for making coated fabric ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or payment of duty under any excisable goods. The RG 23-A is an account prescribed by Rule 57-G for maintaining a record of duty paid on inputs with a record of credit utilised for payment of duty utilised on the product. Subsequently, notification No.18/90 CE (NT) dated 16thMay, 1990 was issued substituting Rs.5.25 sq.mt., in place of Rs.3.50 per sq.mt. By another notification No.39/91 CE (NT) dated 16th Dec., 1991, Rs.5.25 was substituted by Rs.5.50 per sq.mt. It followed by notification No.5/94 CE (NT) dated 1st March, 1994, which by clause (3) of 2nd proviso, made the following stipulation : " *&nbs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... time to time. After taking such credit, the appellant had excess modvat credit of Rs.29,72,893.50 as on 1st March, 1994. The appellant asked for refund of the unutilised amount lying in its account by sending a letter to the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Virudhunagar-2 and the Commissioner of Central Excise, Madurai. The representation having been rejected vide letter C.No.IV/16/225/97-T.3 dated 12th March, 1998, the writ petitions were preferred challenging the order of rejection and Notification No.5/94 CE (NT) dated 1st March, 1994. 5. According to the counsel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nbsp; of the credit may either be restricted or denied. In other words, under Rule 57-A, Government may intake the inputs and the final products for the purpose of the scheme with an added power to restrict duty credit available on the receipt of the inputs and nothing more. It was submitted that the notification under challenge is violative of Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India. On the other hand, according to the counsel for the respondent, Notification No.177/86 CE (NT) dated 1st March, 1986 was issued under Rule 57A, which was superseded by subsequent notifications, inc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the said notification, by clause (d) after 3rd proviso, the following proviso was inserted :- * * * * * * * * "(d) Provided also that the credit of the specified duties paid on the goods falling under heading No.39.04 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (5 of 1986), when used in the manufacture of goods falling under heading No.59.03 of the said Schedule (hereinafter referred to as "final product") shall be allowed subject to the following conditions, namely ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
