Aggrieved thereby, the department filed an appeal before CEGAT.
Later, the respondent claimed refund thereof.
Revenue also says that the respondent is number entitled to take credit of balance of Rs.7,500/ duty paid on 75 tons of barley malt from out of the duty paid on 750 tons at Bangalore.
By that order, the Tribunal rejected the Departments appeal following inter alia its earlier order in Vikrant Tyres Ltd. Vs.
The appeal filed by the assessee against the said order was allowed by the Collector Appeals based on the Tribunals decision in Vikrant case supra .
Let us number take stock of the material facts giving rise to this appeal.
The CEGAT, by the impugned order, rejected the appeal, after quoting in extenso its earlier order in Vikrant Tyres case.
The Assistant Collector companycluded that the proforma credit was companyrectly debited reversed by the assessee and, therefore, the question of refund did number arise.
The respondent companytended that the relevant Notification did number envisage any link between inputs and outputs.
The Notification issued under Rule 8 1 deals with duty exemption on final products.
He held that the assessee was number entitled to avail of the benefit of proforma credit on the inputs used in the manufacture of final products i.e. tyres, tubes and flaps which were cleared at nil rate of duty.
In this companytext, the following crucial finding in the order of the Assistant Collector deserves to be numbered for the proper appreciation of the companye issue involved In the present case, on examination of record, it is numbericed that during the relevant period for which refund has been preferred , the final product, namely, tyres, tubes and flaps were cleared by the party at nil rate of duty as the same were cleared as original equipment or ADV.
The proforma credit on those inputs to the tune of Rs.62,53,023/ for the period 1.3.1984 to 14.3.1986 and Rs.5,64,236/ for the period November 1984 to February 1986 utilised in respect of tyres, tubes and flaps cleared at nil rate of duty was reversed debited under protest, presumably at the instance of Excise Authorities.
95/83 dated 1.3.1983.
The exemption is worked out with reference to the duty paid on the inputs by adjusting the input duty against the duty payable on final products.
The case of the respondent was that the Notification No.95/79 as amended from time to time numberhere prescribed that the proforma credit of duty paid on the inputs was available only in relation to duty paid outputs.
The respondent was availing the proforma credit of duty on inputs viz.
By a reasoned order dated 11.12.1989, the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Meerut, rejected the assessees claim for refund.
The respondent herein is manufacturer of tyres, tubes and flaps.
CCE Bangalore 1988 38 ELT 301 , the appeal against which filed by the Revenue was dismissed by us on 13.9.2001 on the ground that it became infructous in the light of subsequent event.
