ORDER
Gowri Shankar, Member (T)
1. The common question for consideration in these appeals in the eligibility to modvat credit of the appellant of the duty paid on inputs used in the manufacture of potassium carbonate which was subsequently exported under Duty Drawback Scheme. Notices were issued to it proposing recovery of modvat credit that it took on the ground that the benefit of drawback under the Customs & Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules, 1995 has been claimed. The Commissioner in each case has confirmed the duty.
2. The contention of the representative of the appellant is that there is no provision in the rule relating to modvat to deny credit only because drawback has been claimed on the exported goods manufactured by the assessee. He further contends that rule 3 of Drawback Rules provides that the amount of additional duty of Customs Duty available as modvat credit would not be an element in determining the drawback payable. Therefore, he says that the Commissioner’s conclusion is not maintainable.
3. The departmental representative points to the fact that Rule 57F(4) prohibited refund of unutilised credit.
4. The Board in its circular No. 83/2000-Cus dated 16.10.2000, reproduced in 2000 (121) ELT 243 clarified that “where only Customs portion of duties is claimed as per the All Industry Rate of Drawback, Rule 57F(14), does not come in the way of admitting refund of unutilised credit of Central Excise/Countervailing duty paid on inputs used in products exported.” It is a fact that in proviso to sub-rule 1,2 and 3 of the Drawback Rules, there is a reference to “All Industry Rate”. Drawback is available to every export of goods on average quantities and its value. By application of proviso to Rule 1,2, and 3 quantity drawback claim, therefore, would not include the additional duty of Customs or Central Excise Duty. Therefore, there is no case for denying the modvat credit. Appeals are allowed. Impugned order is set aside.
(Dictated in Court)
