ORDER
Smt. Archana Wadhwa
1.
Vide the impugned order, the authorities below have rejected the appellants’ refund claim of Rs.46,104/- relating to reversal of movdat credit consequent upon clearance of C.T.C.Machines for export under Quantity Based Advance Licence (QBAL)Scheme By a Merchant Exporter (M/s T & I Global Private Ltd.) against two AR-4s dated 29.3.95 and 30.3.95.The said modvat credit was reversed by the appellants at the time of clearance of the said machines from their factory so as to enable the exporter to obtain import duty free inputs under the DEEC Scheme in terms of Notification No.204/92-Cus.With effect from 1.4.95, the Export and Import Policy underwent a change to the effect that the manufacturer would avail modvat credit and the importer was to pay countervailing duty under Duty Exemption Scheme and the exporter could transfer his licence after fulfilling the export obligation.Inasmuch as the said machines were cleared from the factory prior to 1.4.95, the appellants’ refund claims were rejected by the Assistant Commissioner by holding that the modvat reversal was an order in terms of provisions to Notification No. 204/92-Cus.
2. The appellants’ contention is that they were under no obligation to reverse the modvat credit but reversed the same in order to enable to exporter to avail the benefit of duty free import under Notification 204/92-Cus.Inasmuch as, there was a change in the EXIM Policy with effec from 1.4.95, they were entitled to refund of credit.
3. On the other hand, the Revenue has referred to the Tribunal’s decision in the case of Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai Vs.Bharat Pulverising Mills Ltd. reported in 1999 (111) ELT 193 (Tribunal), in support of their arguments that the exemption Notification 204/92-Cus was not available if the export goods have availed credit.
4. After careful considering the submissions made from both sides, it is seen that the appellants have not denied the factum of reversal of modvat credit for the purpose of enabling their exporter to obtain duty free inputs under DEEC Scheme and the same was done in accordance with the provisions contained in the Notification No.204/92-Cus, as in existence on the date of the reversal.Subsequent change in the EXIM Policy with effect from 1.4.95 will not effect the reversal of modvat credit already made in accordance with the provisions of the Notification.It is well settled that any subsequent change in the legal provisions cannot be made applicable for the period prior to such change unless the law confers such benefit with retrospective effect.no such retrospective effect has been given to the Policy effective from 1.4.95.The modvat reversal was in accordance with law at the time of clearance of the subject goods. Accordingly, we hold that he refund claim of the appellants was liable to be rejected.No infirmity is found in the views taken by the authorities below.Accordingly, we reject the appeal.