C.C. EX. Vs. PRITI TEXTILES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent were engaged in manufacturing of excisable Man Made Fabrics and availed Modvat Credit as per law, on the inputs. Since they were exporting the fabrics and manufactured, under Bond, without discharging duty thereon, the Credit of Modvat in balance could not be utilised. They were entitled to refund of such credit by the CCE (A). It who found - i) Rule 57F (13) provide for cash refund of unutilised credit and major portion of the goods manufactured were exported & the Credit on balance & utilization thereof is not in dispute. ii) The adjudicators finding, & evidence that credit could not be otherwise utilised was not sustainable since statements were submitted, showing production clearance & exports, & the figures were available from monthly returns filed & were required to be considered. Paying duty from Personal Ledger Account & claiming refund would not be beneficial to the assessee, therefore there is no reason to suspect that the assessee had intentionally not utilised the credit to debit clearances. iii) As regards original document not filed, it was found that they have been submitted the same to same authorities in connection with AR4 closures as Proof of Export.

(2.) Hence this appeal by Revenue on the grounds - a) Conditions of not. 85/87 CE mandatory & are required to be strictly followed. b) As per this notification, claim cannot be submitted more than once in a quarter & the assessee had filed 3 claims during March 98 & two in July / Sept.98; resulting in the verification of capacity to utilise, not to be made & thus condition Nos. 2 & 5 of notification were not complied.

(3.) Heard both sides and considered the issue. It is found - a) The substantive powers to refund, arise from Rule 57 F (13). Notification only provides the procedures. Condition No (2) of the verification has a proviso inserted vide not. 40/95 CE dt27.12.95 to permit one such claim per calendar Month; that has not been exceeded nor there is material in the grounds to conclude that condition of proviso is not met. The ground of violation of condition No. 2 & 5 is therefore not upheld. b) The CCE (A) has brought out the fact of AR 4 being submitted to same authority to meet the export obligation proof cannot be found fault. This to be a failure, to cause rejection of the refund under 57 F (13) by the same authority cannot be upheld. The original authority could have verified the documents in the other file. c) There is commercial sense & force in the finding of CCE (A), that no manufacturer will discharge current liability of duty in cash, from his PLA, thereafter only to seek refunds of the Credit amounts. No precedent man of Commerce would block his cash/money. When he could as well discharge the current duty liabilities from the Modvat Credits available & not disputed. d) There are no valid grounds found to upheld the finding of CCE (Appeal)