RANBAXY LABORATORIES LTD Vs. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the impugned order ld. Commissioner (Appeals) held : -

(2.) THE facts of the case in brief are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of bulk drugs falling under Chapter 29 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellant is exporting the bulk drugs on payment of Central Excise Duty under the provisions of Rule 12(1)(a) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. After receiving the proof of export the appellant filed 198 rebate claims under Rule 12(1)(a) during the years 1995 -96 and 1996 -97 amounting to Rs. 4,06,52,757/ -. The claims were found to be admissible. Out of this an amount of Rs. 2,53,22,1157 - was paid in cash and an amount of Rs. 1,53,30,642/ - was sanctioned in RG 23A Ft. II which the appellant credited in their RG 23A Ft. II during the period Aug. 96 to Jan/97. On 26 -3 -1997, the appellant submitted a letter claiming the refund of the amount of Rs. 1,53,30,642/ -. The Asstt. Commissioner while adjudicating the claim of the appellant observed: -

(3.) ARGUING the case Shri R. Swaminathan, ld. Consultant submits that the appellants are availing the benefit of Modvat credit of duty paid on the inputs used in the manufacture of bulk drugs; that the appellants are clearing around 70% of the total production for export; that the appellants were clearing the goods for export under Rule 12(1)(a) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 on payment of duty; that the appellants have never been able to utilise the amount of credit taken in RG 23A Part II granted as rebate under Rule 12 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and allowed as credit in RG 23A Pt. II; that the Central Board of Excise and Customs clearly held that the rebate claim is to be paid in cash; that on 1 -3 -97, the provisions of Rule 57F were amended and Rule 57F(17) was introduced w.e.f. 1 -3 -97; that this amended Rule provided that the credit of specified duty lying unutilised on 1 -3 -97 with the manufacturer of bulk drugs shall lapse and shall not be allowed to be utilised for payment of duty on any excisable goods whether cleared for home consumption or for export; that the proviso to this rule provided that nothing contained in this Clause shall apply to the credit of the duty paid on the inputs lying in stock or contained in the finished product lying in stock as on 1 -3 -97; that by the aforesaid provisions of Rule 57F(17), the appellants were not allowed to utilise the credit which was given as rebate in RG 23A Pt. II account; that the appellants vide their letter, dated 26 -3 -1997 requested the Asstt. Commissioner to grant rebate in cash instead of granting it as credit; that the Asstt. Commissioner rejected their request; that they filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who also rejected their appeal.