CCE Vs. DABUR INDIA LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of various dutiable and exempted goods. They reversed the credit of Rs. 6,34,000/ - on proportionate basis on furnace oil used as coil in the manufacture of exempted goods under Rule 6(2) of Cenvat Credit Rules. Subsequently, the Tribunal in the case of Indore Steel & Iron Mills Ltd. v. CCE, Indore reported in, 2002 (51) RLT 174 (CEGAT -DELHI) held that reversal of credit on coils is not required. Hence, the respondent filed a refund claim of Rs. 6,34,000/ -. The Original Authority rejected the refund claim with observation that the case law is not applicable in the case of respondent. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the Adjudication Order. Hence, the Revenue filed this appeal.

(2.) Ld . DR reiterates the Grounds of Appeal. He submits that the amount of 8% was reversed by the respondent on removal of the exempted goods is not duty and, therefore, the refund under Section 11B is not applicable.

(3.) After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the records, I find that the main contention of the ld. DR is that the payment of amount under Rule 57CC of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules 1944 and Rule 6(3)(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 does not fall under the category of Central Excise Duty and, therefore, refund under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 would not apply. It is seen that the Tribunal in the case of Life Long Appliances Ltd. (supra) held that such payment of duty at 8% brings about the adjustment of excess credit taken. In other words, it is equivalent to reversal of credit on inputs. In the case of Hwashin Automotive India Pvt. Ltd. (supra), it has been held that payment of 8% under Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002/2004, unjust enrichment would not apply as the amount was not collected from the customers. The Tribunal held that the assessee was eligible for refund of the same.