2008 (1) TMI 789 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Export of goods under exemption notification.
2. Requirement of certificate from jurisdictional Central Excise authorities.
3. Non-availment of Modvat credit by supporting manufacturer.

Analysis:

1. The appellant exported 'synthetic detergent powder' under exemption notification No. 203/92-Cus. The condition for exemption was no input Modvat credit should be availed for the exported goods. The appellant provided a certificate from the supporting manufacturer, stating no credit was availed as they were exempt under Notification No. 88/88-C.E. The appellant requested the Central Excise authority for a certificate, which remained unanswered.

2. The Commissioner denied the benefit to the appellant, citing lack of a certificate from Central Excise authorities, despite the certificate from the supporting manufacturer. The Tribunal noted that the notification did not specify the need for a certificate from Central Excise authorities. The appellant's request for the certificate was unanswered, and the supporting manufacturer's certification remained unchallenged by the Revenue.

3. The Tribunal found that the Commissioner's conclusion that the appellant failed to prove non-availment of credit by the supporting manufacturer was not sustainable. The lack of evidence contrary to the supporting manufacturer's certification led the Tribunal to allow the stay petition unconditionally. The supporting manufacturer's exemption under Notification No. 88/88-C.E. further supported the non-availment of Modvat credit.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues related to export under exemption notification, the requirement of certificates, and the non-availment of Modvat credit by the supporting manufacturer, providing a comprehensive understanding of the legal aspects involved in the case.