OM PRAKASH JAYAPRAKASH AND CO. Vs. CCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The issue involved in these two appeals, filed by M/s. Om Prakash Jayaprakash and Co., relates to rejection of refund claims filed by them.

(2.) Shri Naveen Mullick, learned Advocate, submitted that the appellants manufacture processed man -made fabrics and availed Modvat Credit of the duty paid on inputs; that under Notification No. 29/96 -CE dated 3.6.96, the eligibility of the deemed credit was prescribed for the inputs used in the manufacture of their final products; that they had filed two claims for refund of deemed Modvat Credit remained in balance in their deemed credit register during the course of export under bond for the period from April, 1998 to June, 1998 and remained unutilised towards payment of Central Excise duty on their specified final products cleared for home consumption; that the Assistant Commissioner has rejected both the refund claims and on appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) also, under the impugned order, has rejected their appeals, holding that the appellants could have utilised the amount of which refund has been sought by them towards payment of duty on goods cleared for home consumption. The learned Advocate, further, submitted that these refund claims have been filed under Rule 57F of the Central Excise Rules; that they had met all the conditions and limitations as set out in Notification No. 85/87 -CE dated 1.3.87 for the purpose of availing the refund; that under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act/any person claiming refund of Central Excise duty, is required to make an application before the expiry of six months from the relevant date; that under Explanation (B) to Section 11B, the relevant date in the case of goods exported out of India by sea or Air, is the date on which the ship or the aircraft leaves India; that the first refund claim was filed 5y them on 13.1.99 in respect of the goods exported during the period from April, 1998 to June, 1998 and as such was well within time; that the second refund claim was filed in the month of February; 1999 in respect of the goods exported in the month on July, 1998. He, finally, mentioned that the Commissioner (Appeals), Surat, vide Order -in -Appeal No. SSS/SRT/1857 -1897/99 dated 22.10.99, has allowed appeals in the identical facts and circumstances. He, therefore, requested that refund claim, filed by them, may also be sanctioned to them. He also relied upon the decision in the case of CCE, Chennai v. Indian Organic Chemicals Ltd. ; 2001 (138) ELT 209 (T) wherein it has been held that the refund of excise paid on inputs used in the manufacture of final product, eventually exported, cannot be denied.

(3.) Countering the arguments, Shri D.N. Choudhary, learned SDR reiterated the findings as contained in the impugned order.