ORDER
P.G. Chacko, Member (J)
1. The appellants had imported inputs under DEEC scheme during 1994-95, availing the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 203/92-Cus. dt. 19.5.92. Later on, it was found by the Customs authorities that they had availed input duty credit while discharging the export obligation under the scheme. The Notification had prohibited this in para (v)(a) thereof. When this violation of the major condition under the Notification was detected and pointed out to the party, they initially did not acknowledge the violation. This led to a show-cause notice wherein the benefit of the Notification was produced to be denied and, consequently, demand of customs duty on the imported goods was raised. This notice was contested. Ld. Commissioner of Customs, in terms of the amnesty scheme of the Central Government, dropped the proceedings against the assessee after nothing that they had reversed the Modvat credit and also paid interest before the dead-line (31.1.97).
2. Yet the party is aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner. They say that they had actually used indigenous inputs also in the manufacture of export goods and, in respect of such inputs, they were not liable to reverse the credit. It is pointed out that, by mistake, they had reversed the credit in respect of such inputs. In this appeal, they want to get back this credit.
3. After hearing both sides, we are unable to accede to this prayer. They party submitted themselves to amnesty provided by the Central Government. In terms of the amnesty scheme, the adjudicating authority dropped the proceedings against them after nothing the facts pleaded by them. Now the assessee cannot turn round and say that the facts presented before the Commissioner in the context of adjudication of the case were not correct. What stands settled under an amnesty scheme is to be treated as settled for ever. One cannot have one’s cake and eat it.
4. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.