2005 (10) TMI 413 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Duty demand on imported goods under Notification No. 203/92-Cus.
2. Requirement of certificate regarding non-availment of input credit by the manufacturer.
3. Validity of the certificate produced by the appellant.
4. Dispute over the need for countersigning the certificate by Central Excise Authorities.
5. Adjudication and penalty imposition by the authority.

Analysis:
1. The appellant imported raw materials under the Advance Licence Scheme against Notification No. 203/92-Cus, clearing goods without payment of duty. The issue arose when a demand for duty was made due to the appellant's failure to produce a certificate confirming non-availment of input credit by the manufacturer.

2. The appellant argued that despite obtaining a certificate from the supporting manufacturer stating no Modvat credit was availed, the demand was upheld. The revenue contended that evidence of non-availment of input credit was required, which the appellant failed to provide, justifying the duty demand.

3. The certificate provided by the appellant from the supporting manufacturer was deemed insufficient by the adjudicating authority as it lacked countersigning by authorities. However, the appellant fulfilled the condition of the notification by producing a certificate regarding non-availing of input credit, which the revenue did not dispute but rejected due to lack of countersigning.

4. The tribunal emphasized that the certificate's correctness could have been verified by the revenue, but no action was taken. As the certificate fulfilled the notification's conditions and the revenue did not contest its validity, the benefit of the notification should not have been denied solely based on the absence of countersigning.

5. Consequently, the tribunal remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority for reconsideration, setting aside the previous order. The authority was directed to verify the certificate, grant a hearing to the appellant, and make a decision based on the certificate's validity. The appeal was disposed of by way of remand for further review and appropriate order issuance.