ORDER
T. Anjaneyulu, Member (J)
1. The Asst. Commissioner, Central Excise, Chembur Division, Mumbai-II, rejected the refund claim of Rs. 3,79,729/- filed by the appellant and on appeal, the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai, has confirmed the same. Hence this appeal by the assessee.
2. M/s. USV Ltd. are engaged in export of various P&P Medicaments.
3. The appellant fulfilled the export obligation, but did not import any item and therefore surrendered the Value Based Advance Licences to Jt. DGFT and the same were cancelled as unutilized on 17.11.1995. Thus, no imports were made against these licences. Hence, the appellant has not availed the benefit of Notification No. 203/92 Cus for import of the goods.
4. However, the appellant reversed the credit of Rs. 3,25,981/- + Rs. 53,748/- availed on inputs used in the manufacture of export product from PLA against the said licences. Since no benefit under Notification No. 203/92 Cus has been availed, reversal of credit is not required.
5. It has been clarified in Trade Notice No. 43/97 dated 31.3.1997 that the credit of duty reversed on inputs used for export should be refunded to the assesses in case the credit of duty is not required to be reversed.
6. The contentions of the appellant are that –
(a) The condition of Notification 203/92 Cus shall apply when the applicants have the benefit of the said notification. The said notification provides for duty free imports of inputs specified in the value based advance licence. As mentioned above, the appellants in respect of these licences have not availed the benefit of Notification 203/92 Cus as items have not been imported against these licences.
(b) The appellants also rely upon the judgment in the case of Dome Bell Investment (P) Ltd. [1999 (34) RLT 194 (CEGAT] and submit that the refund claim must be sanctioned.
7. The Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) has rejected the appeal as the appellants have not submitted any documentary evidence for non-availment of benefit under Notification 203/92 Cus. The appellants had submitted the unutilized advance licences with DEEC Books to DGFT for cancellation and the fact of cancellation is stated in the various letters issued by Jt. Director General of Foreign Trade, Mumbai.
8. The appellants have reversed the credit on the desire to comply with the benefit of Value Based Advance Licence Scheme. The appellants have also exported the goods and obtained a licence. However, they abandoned the desire to avail the benefit under the scheme and surrendered the licence so granted, which has been subsequently cancelled and there is enough evidence on record. Therefore, the credit reversal effected while making the export were not required and the appellants have to get the benefit of restitution.
9. In the light of the aforesaid discussion and following the ruling in the case of M/s. Dome Bell Investment (P) Ltd., the appeal is allowed.
(Pronounced in Court on 05.01.2005)