2002 (1) TMI 494 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to denial of deemed Modvat credit under Notification No. 58/97-C.E. (N.T.) on inputs supplied by manufacturers under Compounded Levy Scheme.

Analysis:
The applicants challenged the denial of deemed Modvat credit under Notification No. 58/97-C.E. (N.T.) on inputs supplied by manufacturers under the Compounded Levy Scheme. The applicants sought waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery regarding duty and penalty amounts covered by the impugned order. Despite multiple adjournments at the applicants' instance, there was no representation for them during the hearing. The respondent argued that the denial of deemed Modvat credit was justified as the duty liability on certain inputs was not discharged by the input-manufacturers, as required by the Notification. The respondent emphasized that the condition of appropriate duty payment by the manufacturers was substantive and mandatory for Modvat credit eligibility. The respondent also contended that the applicants' claim of a strong prima facie case was unsustainable and that the plea of financial hardships lacked supporting evidence.

Upon reviewing the submissions and the grounds of appeal, the judge noted that the Notification declared inputs received from manufacturers under the Compounded Levy Scheme as duty-paid for Modvat credit purposes. The judge highlighted that the condition in para 4 of the Notification, requiring a declaration in invoices by input-manufacturers regarding duty payment, had two parts. The first part, concerning direct receipt of inputs by credit-taking manufacturers, was fulfilled by the applicants. The judge acknowledged that the invoices did contain the required declaration of duty payment by the input-manufacturers. The respondent's objection regarding the absence of a certificate from the Central Excise Range officer was addressed by the judge, who found this condition insignificant in light of the deemed duty payment declaration by the Central Government in the Notification.

The judge considered the cited Supreme Court decisions provided by the respondent but noted that they did not deal with exemption Notifications favoring the assessee. Regarding the applicants' financial condition, the judge found no proof of financial hardships supporting their claim. Considering the duty and penalty amounts involved, the judge directed the applicants to deposit a specified amount within a given period. Compliance with this direction would result in a waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery for the remaining duty and penalty amounts.