2004 (5) TMI 482 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Denial of deemed Modvat credit under Notification No. 58/97

Analysis:
The judgment involves two appeals challenging the common order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the denial of deemed Modvat credit to the appellants under Notification No. 58/97. The appellant's counsel argued that the denial was improper, even for invoices with declarations of duty to be discharged under Rule 96ZP, as the input suppliers were disputing their duty liability. The counsel contended that the impugned order should be set aside. On the contrary, the Departmental Representative supported the correctness of the impugned order.

The Tribunal found that the appellants, engaged in manufacturing auto parts, were entitled to claim deemed Modvat credit based on invoices with declarations of duty discharge under Rule 96ZP as per Notification No. 58/97. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) failed to consider this crucial aspect. The Tribunal noted that denial of Modvat credit could only be justified for invoices lacking such declarations. The Commissioner (Appeals) neglected to examine the plea that the input suppliers had discharged their duty liability, which was under dispute and sub-judice. The Tribunal also highlighted that the Commissioner (Appeals) did not analyze the matter in detail in light of relevant legal principles.

Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority for a fresh decision. The appellants were granted the opportunity to present evidence to support their claim for deemed Modvat credit. The Tribunal emphasized the need for a thorough review of the case by the adjudicating authority, considering the observations made. The appeals of the appellants were disposed of accordingly, with directions for a fresh decision after hearing the appellants.