NARAYANI TEXTILES PVT. LTD. Vs. CCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants are an independent textile processor covered under the compounded Levy Scheme w.e.f. 16.12.1998. Prior to 16.12.98, they were availing the benefit of deemed Modvat credit under Notification No. 29/96 -CE (NT) dated 3.9.96 for the purpose of payment of central excise duty on their final products viz. processed fabrics when cleared for home consumption or for export under Bond. From the said date, under the Compounded Levy Scheme introduced under Scheme 3 A of the Central Excise Act, they were not in a position to utilize the deemed Modvat credits accumulated in their account, towards payment of duty of excise on any final product cleared for home consumption or for export under Bond. Under sub -rule (13) of Rule 57F of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules 1944, they were entitled to cash refund of the amount equivalent to such unutilized credit, subject to such safeguards, conditions and limitations as might be specified by the Central Government by Notification in the Official Gazette. Notification No. 85/87 -CE dated 1.3.1987, which had been issued under the first proviso to sub -rule (3) of Rule 57F, had laid down the safeguards, conditions and limitations in relation to such refunds. [The provisions contained in the said first proviso later on came to be embodied in sub -rule (13) of Rule 57F]. These safeguards, conditions and limitations read as under: -

(2.) The appellants had in their account unutilized deemed Modvat credits totalling to Rs. 5, 98, 236/ - as on 16.12.98, for which they filed a refund claim on 17.5.99. This claim was rejected by the jurisdictional Dy. Commissioner of Central Excise on numerous grounds including (a) that the claim was presented in wrong Form (Form -R instead of Form -A) and under wrong provision of law [(Rule 173 S read with Section 11B, instead of Rule 57F (13)], (b) that the condition stated in para (4) of Appendix to Notification No. 85/87 -CE dated 1.3.87 (as amended) had not been complied with, (c) that the original documents evidencing export of goods under Bond were not submitted and (d) a major part of the claim was time -barred. The appeal preferred by the party to the Commissioner (Appeals) against the decision of the original authority did not succeed. Hence the present appeal.

(3.) We have carefully examined the records and heard both the sides.