9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 599X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... notification, the respondent was availing cenvat credit and utilizing the same for payment of duty and subsequently claiming and getting refund of such duty paid. The dispute pertains to the period January - March, 2003. In this regard it is necessary to record that the said Notification No. 32/99-CE dated 08.07.1999 was amended vide Notification No.61/2002-CE dated 23.12.2002. The said amendment is reproduced below for ready reference: Sl.No. Notification No. and Date Amendment 1. 32/99-Central Excise dated the 8th July, 1999 In the said notification, in the second paragraph, in clause (b), the following proviso shall be added, namely:- "Provided that such refund shall not exceed the amount of duty paid less the amount of the CENVAT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -CE dated 06.08.2003. He submitted that the refund claims for the period January-March, 2003 were required to be processed only in the light of the amendments carried out in the notification vide Notification No.61/2002-CE dated 23.12.2002. He finally submitted that when the refund claims are evaluated on the above basis, the impugned order is sustainable. 5. In terms of the Notification No. 32/99-CE dated 08.07.1999, as amended vide Notification No.61/2002-CE dated 23.12.2002 ibid, the refund is to be worked out by restricting the same to the amount of duty paid less the amount of cenvat credit availed in respect of the duty paid on the inputs used in or in relation to the manufacture of the goods cleared under this notification. Further ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ons shall not exceed the amount of duty paid less the amount of cenvat credit availed of in respect of duty paid on inputs used in or in relation to the manufacture of goods cleared under the corresponding exemption notification. I do not find anything in the notification to suggest that the entire canvat credit availed in a month has to be deducted while allowing the refund for the month. CBEC vide Circular No.683/74/2002-CX dated 24.12.2002 clarified this matter. CBEC instructions under D.O.F. No.334/1/2003-TRU dated 28.02.03 also support this view. This position was unchanged till issuance of notification No.65/03 dated 6.8.03. In his orders dated 13.2.03 and 13.03.03 the Deputy Commissioner had correctly appreciated the matter. He was n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
