JAY ENTERPRISES Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The following substantial question of law was framed at the time of admission of the appeal :

(2.) The appellant, a manufacturer of Paper Based Decorative Laminated Sheets, was exigible to Excise Duty under Tariff Entry 15-A of the Central Excise Tariff Act. The appellant availed of proforma credit under Rule 56-A of the Central Excise Rules which was predecessor Rule of the relevant Rules framed under the MODVAT/CENVAT Scheme. It appears that after 28th February, 1986 a dispute arose between Central Excise Department and the assessees, who were paper manufacturers and in light of such dispute relatable to items which could be included in post manufacturing expenses, a certificate of assessable value was obtained from Range Superintendent certifying the amount of differential duty in respect of consignments sent to the appellant. On the basis of the said certificate the appellant requested the Range Superintendent having jurisdiction over the appellant to allow credit of differential duty amounting to Rs.7,56,706.89. Accordingly, by three separate letters, all dated 5th June, 1987, the appellant was allowed credit of duty amounting to Rs.7,56,706.89.

(3.) Subsequently, however, by letter dated 12th January, 1988, the Range Superintendent exercising jurisdiction over the appellant, called upon the appellant to pay the aforesaid amount within 10 days since, according to the department, in view of the provisions of MODVAT Scheme, credit of MODVAT and proforma credit were mutually exclusive and the appellant was entitled to benefit only under one of the schemes and not under both. The appellant repaid the aforesaid amount in installments, under protest.