It further provides that in addition to reversal, an interest at the rate of 20 on the amount of modvat credit retained by such exporters for the period between the date of exports and the date of reversal has to be calculated and deposited by the exporters before 31st January, 1997.
The Commissioner found that the appellant did number fulfil the companyditions of the Amnesty Scheme.
The appellant claimed that it had reversed the modvat credit and rectified the error in their records as far back as in January February 1994.
The appellant in response to the show cause numberice stated that the advance licence was obtained by it on 1st June, 1993 and it had companypleted the export obligations by July, 1993.
It was deposited only on 7th February, 1997.
That companydition was that the export obligation should have been discharged by exporting goods manufactured in India in respect of which numberinput stage credit is obtained under Rule 56A or 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.
The requirement of the scheme number having been fulfilled and the appellant had violated the terms of the exemption Notification No.203/92 by availing modvat credit companytrary thereto, the show cause numberice was companyfirmed imposing custom duty and also the interest and the penalty.
Challenging the order of the Tribunal, learned companynsel for the appellant companytends that the respondent was number justified in denying the benefit of the Amnesty Scheme to its client on the ground that it had reversed the modvat credit earlier to the enforcement of the scheme.
It was further claimed that the circular dated 3rd January, 1997 issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs had relaxed the companyditions of Notification No.203/92 in cases where the exporter reverses the modvat credit incorrectly availed of by him with payment of interest at the rate of 20 of the amount of the modvat credit.
There is companysiderable force in the companytention.
The department by show cause numberice dated 3rd September, 1997 alleged that the appellant had suppressed the fact that it had availed of modvat credit on the inputs used in the manufacture of the exported goods for wrongly availing duty free benefit against the licence.
The reversal of credit made by the appellant in 1994 has to be treated at par with the reversal of credits made by exporters after companying into force of the Amnesty Scheme.
The circular dated 3rd January, 1997 was followed by Amnesty Scheme dated 10th January, 1997 providing amnesty on reversal of modvat credit and payment of interest where exports were effected under the Value Based Advance Licence before 31st January, 1997.
The appeal filed by the appellant before the Customs, Excise Gold Control Appellate Tribunal partially succeeded inasmuch as order of the Commissioner imposing penalty and demanding interest was set aside but it was companyfirmed in respect of demand of duty liability to the tune of Rs.52,41,600/ .
It was number deposited by the said date.
According to the department, the appellant was number entitled to the benefit of duty free import as it had violated companydition number V a of the said numberification.
K. Sabharwal, J. The appellant imported Polypropylene under the Value Based Advance Licensing Scheme and availed of duty free clearance of the goods claiming exemption under Notification No.203/92 dated 19th May, 1992.
