TMI Blog1997 (10) TMI 84X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and Technical" and "Cyparmethrin Technical" and availed input Modvat credit on the same. After subjecting the same to Quality control and after repacking these into drums exported those under bond as per procedure. In terms of Notification No. 85/87-C.E., dated 1-3-1987 issued under Rule 57F(3), they filed refund claims amounting to Rs. 44,68,037/-, Rs. 28,65,720/- and Rs. 24,64,000/- pertaining to the Quarter ending June, 1995, September, 1995 and December, 1995 respectively. These were rejected by Assistant Commissioner, Dn. K III, Mumbai-I, the reasons for rejection being that the respondent had not at all utilised the inputs in the manufacture of any final product and had exported the inputs as such and hence have not fulfilled the sti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ority was on that point on which they have got favourable orders from the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals). Hence, now, for the applicant Commissioner having not gone in review of the AC's orders or missed the opportunity of appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), cannot pick points in the Order-in-Original and come in review before Government. What he can do is to come in review of Order-in-Appeal and placed reliance on the Tribunal's decision as reported in 1997 (94) E.L.T. 511 (Tribunal). 8. The Advocate further averred that they had furnished all documents and explanations to the original authority and submitted illustrative copies. Regarding the question of denial of rebate on Modvat availed inputs when exported as such, he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... als). Having not done so, to rectify the same by way of review of the appellate order, is not proper and is uncalled for Govt. agrees with this plea of the respondents. However the ratio of the Tribunals decision relied upon by the respondents is not relevant in the present context because in that case a direction given in an earlier order by the Collector (Appeals) was not appealed against but was sought to be dragged in by appealing to CEGAT against the subsequent (second) order of Collector (Appeals) emanating from the first order passed by him and decision taken by the original authority thereon. Hence reliance upon the Tribunal's decision is of no help to the respondents. 10. It is observed that during the relevant period Rule 57F(1) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssistant Commissioner (Refunds) for acceptance, the acknowledgement for due deposit of these documents were attached with their refund claims (O/o No. K III/274/96). That being the case, when exports are under DEEC scheme no drawback is normally claimed. Any doubts on this score could be got clarified from the appropriate Customs authority by inter departmental correspondence and then confronted the respondents for mis-declaration etc. Equally, the same applies to the acceptance of proof of exports by Assistant Commissioner (Refunds). Having not done so, merely asking the respondents to furnish all the original documents, which are in any case not with them, is nothing but harassment and is viewed seriously. 12. The Show Cause Notice date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
