DOLPHIN DRUGS (P) LTD. Vs. CCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Issue relates to refund claim. The facts of the case in brief are that during quarter from October 1996 to December 1996, the appellants have exported under bond 22000 kgs of Sulphamethoxazole, under AR4 Nos 10/96 -97, 11/96 -97 dt. 27.10.1996 and 15/96 -97 dated 29.11.1996. The modvat credit of duty on the inputs used in the said exported goods is Rs. 11,26,705/ -. The appellants stated that they are not in a position to utilize credit of duty either for clearances of goods for home consumption or for the goods exported during the said period. They have filed refund claim on 8.1.1997 for Rs. 11,26,705/ - as per the proviso to Rule 57F(4) of Central Excise Rules read with Section 11B of Central Excise Act and Notfn. No. 85/87 dated 1.3.1987. The Assistant Commissioner who adjudicated the proceedings has rejected the refund claim on the ground that the appellants are required to reverse the refund amount in RG 23A Part II account simultaneously before the issue of cheque in terms of Notification No. 85/87 as amended on the date of sanctioning the refund. But as per Notification No. 6/97 CE(NT) dt. 1.3.1997, the unutilised credit in the RG 23A Pt. II account is to be lapsed except the admissible credit on inputs left in stock as well as inputs contained in finished goods as provided under the said rule which is to be claimed by the appellants. The appellants are not permitted to utilize the credit of refund amount in the admissible credit. In other words, the credit pertaining to the exports made during October 1996 to December 1996 also get lapsed.

(2.) It was the contention of the party that as per the operative Rule of 57F(4) up to 28.2.1997 and as per the present Rule 57F(13) with effect from 1.3.1997, the manufacturers shall be allowed refund of un -utilised credit of duty pertaining to inputs used in the exported goods for the above period, that refund of Modvat credit of duty under the then Rule 57F(4) and present 57F(13) is eligible and Sub -rule 57F(13) is independent of Sub -rule 57F(17) and the eligibility of refund of duty paid on inputs used in the exported goods is not hit by the provisions of Rule 57F(17).

(3.) The appellants become unsuccessful even before the Commissioner (Appeals). Hence, this appeal.